8 ms·

This. The writers of the constitution understood that if you didn't like doing business with a company you could just take your business to their competitor. If

This. The writers of the constitution understood that if you didn't like doing business with a company you could just take your business to their competitor. If you don't like your bridge club or church, pick a different one. But if your government is infringing your rights, it's very difficult for most people to pick a different government.

Moru 6y ago
But when the private companies overshadow government, there is no competition to take your business to. If Facebook has all my friends, I have to choose my principles or my friends. So far principles won for me but not many can do that offering. And my friends are slowly coming around again :)
- phatfish 6y ago
  Almost as if government regulation relating to monopolies and "too big to fail" corporations actually means something? Maybe a competent government would actually advocate and enforce laws to stop one company controlling your life.
  - Proziam 6y ago
    This is one of the areas where liberal and conservatives alike are often in strong agreement. I find it curious that we haven't seen a protest over this issue that carries enough weight to illicit some serious change. It doesn't strike me as a difficult one to get 100k people to march for, and if the NRA/GOA backed it you could easily get 20-30k individuals who are well armed (and still peaceful) to join in like they did in Virginia. I must be missing something because I cannot imagine why everyone is so tolerant of companies having nation-state level ability to ruin lives, and to routinely face no consequences when they do so.
  - Domenic_S 6y ago
    Lots of bad effects can happen. Imagine you live in a place with one internet provider (most of us) and no cell service. Then imagine that because of something you said, that internet provider cancels your account and doesn't want to work with you anymore. Especially in covid times, that's basically barring you from working. Or say you live in a small town with one grocery store, and they don't like your BLM tshirt so one day they ban you. Private company, they can do that. But now where do you buy food? Or your Brand X car breaks down, but Brand X decides they don't want you in any Brand X dealerships anymore, but the problem is your car needs a specific diagnostic tool only available to Brand X dealers. The examples are endless
    - BTCOG 6y ago
      A sidenote that this interestingly showcases (to me) how people lived and ate before giant grocery store chains. Folks were a lot more decentralized and trade/bartered/bought with their farm from those nearby in the community. Why did we reach a point where one dangerously relies on solely a just-in-time commercial grocery outfit just to live? And I agree, the internet monopoly is a huge issue. The internet should become widely available to all. I would say as a utility, but that then points out the fact that I have one giant power company that could also, censor me and cut me off from my only main source of power... hmmm...
sandworm101 6y ago
This has been hashed out many times. Government cannot be allowed to use private companies as a shield. For instance (this has been tried in the US/canada/uk etc) can a city violate the rights of citizens if it hires a "private" company to conduct policing? Can a city ban certain people from walking the streets if it puts those streets in the hands of a "private" holding company? So what if the government partners with all the large tech companies to have them voluntarily enforce restrictions on speech? Oh, you're free to say whatever you want, just not online. Or on the airwaves. Or in public parks, which were recently put in control of a private management company too. You are free to stand in your bedroom and talk to the wall. Just don't talk loud enough that your corporate landlord kicks you out for a noise violation.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  In such cases the private entities are acting as agents of the government and in that capacity constitutional restrictions would apply to them. There is over 2 centuries of legal jurisprudence on that question. It's not a novel issue.
- scarface74 6y ago
  In fact, the Supreme Court just had two rulings. 1. Religious institutions should have the same rights to funds as any other school. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/us/supreme-court-religious-schools-aid.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/us/supreme-court-religiou... 2. Job Bias laws don’t protect teachers in religious schools. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/us/job-bias-catholic-schools-supreme-court.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/us/job-bias-catholic-scho... In affect, government funds are used to support schools that are allowed to discriminate. It’s not just LGBTQ rights. Some religious schools think that interracial dating/marriage is a “sin”.
beefield 6y ago
> But if your government is infringing your rights, it's very difficult for most people to pick a different government. I am not sure if I am attacking a straw man here, but it sure sounds like you claim that buying one way flight ticket is very difficult compared to getting rid of FAAMG in your life? I understand there are other complications involved in moving abroad that just the flight ticket, but I still think that the big global corps are much more difficult to get rid of than my government. Including the fact that they very much keep communication with my friends at least as much hostage as my government if I decide to move away.
- dreamcompiler 6y ago
  Moving to another country is quite difficult unless you are sponsored by an employer there, have dual citizenship, or are rich. Sure you can fly there, but your tourist visa will run out in a few weeks and they will kick you out if they can find you. So now you're on the run, and good luck finding a job, renting an apartment, or getting health care with an expired tourist visa. Oh and if you're an American, you won't be able to open an account in a local bank because American banking laws control all banks everywhere. The above are generalizations and some countries are easier to move to than others. And all of them IMO are much more difficult than deleting Facebook.
- selectodude 6y ago
  I haven't bought anything off Amazon in awhile. I'm sure I still use AWS when I browse the web but I'm not militant in my lack of support. Hopefully they move somewhere else, but it's fine regardless. I'd be on the next flight out if there was some sort of undocumented American community somewhere in Western Europe or something. But that simply doesn't exist.
  - dash2 6y ago
    Last I looked, they were all in Berlin, pushing up the rent and talking about their startup.
    - selectodude 6y ago
umvi 6y ago
What if a Twitter mob follows individuals around and prevents them from finding jobs because of some speech they said earlier?
- krapp 6y ago
  Employers have the right to hire or not hire whomever they want barring discrimination against protected classes, based on whatever criteria they want to consider relevant. "Person who said a stupid thing on the internet" is not a protected class. A Twitter mob doesn't have any objective power to prevent anyone from finding employment. They do, however, have free speech rights which include the right to communicate with someone's potential employer and argue that they should not be hired. If literally every employer decides not to hire someone based solely on what that mob says, then (notwithstanding how ridiculous that scenario would be in real life) that's possibly a labor rights issue more than a free speech issue.
  - mrkstu 6y ago
    And this singular issue may be the genesis of the rebirth of unions in a modern context.
    - Proziam 6y ago
      I have never seen a Twitter mob manage to avoid the use of libelous claims. This begs the question, what could be done to protect people from online mobs? What relief do you think unions could provide?
      - joshuamorton 6y ago
        "things you think are false" and "libelous" are, in the US, vastly different standards.
        Proziam 6y ago
        I'm familiar with the standards and I stand by my assessment with full confidence. Twitter mobs routinely make up facts and spread completely unfounded misinformation that is demonstrably contrary to what evidence suggests. That's 3/4 of the criteria right then and there. [0] To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement. Now what you need to do is show damages. Lost your job? Deplatformed or demonetized? Vendors, partners, or clients cut ties? Victim of harassment (online or otherwise)? [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
jayd16 6y ago
>The writers of the constitution understood that if you didn't like doing business with a company you could just take your business to their competitor. Is there actually something in the Federalist Papers talking about free market competition? I'm not aware they considered this at all.

Moru 6y ago

But when the private companies overshadow government, there is no competition to take your business to. If Facebook has all my friends, I have to choose my principles or my friends. So far principles won for me but not many can do that offering. And my friends are slowly coming around again :)

phatfish 6y ago
Almost as if government regulation relating to monopolies and "too big to fail" corporations actually means something? Maybe a competent government would actually advocate and enforce laws to stop one company controlling your life.
- Proziam 6y ago
  This is one of the areas where liberal and conservatives alike are often in strong agreement. I find it curious that we haven't seen a protest over this issue that carries enough weight to illicit some serious change. It doesn't strike me as a difficult one to get 100k people to march for, and if the NRA/GOA backed it you could easily get 20-30k individuals who are well armed (and still peaceful) to join in like they did in Virginia. I must be missing something because I cannot imagine why everyone is so tolerant of companies having nation-state level ability to ruin lives, and to routinely face no consequences when they do so.
- Domenic_S 6y ago
  Lots of bad effects can happen. Imagine you live in a place with one internet provider (most of us) and no cell service. Then imagine that because of something you said, that internet provider cancels your account and doesn't want to work with you anymore. Especially in covid times, that's basically barring you from working. Or say you live in a small town with one grocery store, and they don't like your BLM tshirt so one day they ban you. Private company, they can do that. But now where do you buy food? Or your Brand X car breaks down, but Brand X decides they don't want you in any Brand X dealerships anymore, but the problem is your car needs a specific diagnostic tool only available to Brand X dealers. The examples are endless
  - BTCOG 6y ago
    A sidenote that this interestingly showcases (to me) how people lived and ate before giant grocery store chains. Folks were a lot more decentralized and trade/bartered/bought with their farm from those nearby in the community. Why did we reach a point where one dangerously relies on solely a just-in-time commercial grocery outfit just to live? And I agree, the internet monopoly is a huge issue. The internet should become widely available to all. I would say as a utility, but that then points out the fact that I have one giant power company that could also, censor me and cut me off from my only main source of power... hmmm...

sandworm101 6y ago

This has been hashed out many times. Government cannot be allowed to use private companies as a shield. For instance (this has been tried in the US/canada/uk etc) can a city violate the rights of citizens if it hires a "private" company to conduct policing? Can a city ban certain people from walking the streets if it puts those streets in the hands of a "private" holding company? So what if the government partners with all the large tech companies to have them voluntarily enforce restrictions on speech? Oh, you're free to say whatever you want, just not online. Or on the airwaves. Or in public parks, which were recently put in control of a private management company too. You are free to stand in your bedroom and talk to the wall. Just don't talk loud enough that your corporate landlord kicks you out for a noise violation.

gamblor956 6y ago
In such cases the private entities are acting as agents of the government and in that capacity constitutional restrictions would apply to them. There is over 2 centuries of legal jurisprudence on that question. It's not a novel issue.
scarface74 6y ago
In fact, the Supreme Court just had two rulings. 1. Religious institutions should have the same rights to funds as any other school. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/us/supreme-court-religious-schools-aid.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/us/supreme-court-religiou... 2. Job Bias laws don’t protect teachers in religious schools. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/us/job-bias-catholic-schools-supreme-court.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/08/us/job-bias-catholic-scho... In affect, government funds are used to support schools that are allowed to discriminate. It’s not just LGBTQ rights. Some religious schools think that interracial dating/marriage is a “sin”.

beefield 6y ago

> But if your government is infringing your rights, it's very difficult for most people to pick a different government. I am not sure if I am attacking a straw man here, but it sure sounds like you claim that buying one way flight ticket is very difficult compared to getting rid of FAAMG in your life? I understand there are other complications involved in moving abroad that just the flight ticket, but I still think that the big global corps are much more difficult to get rid of than my government. Including the fact that they very much keep communication with my friends at least as much hostage as my government if I decide to move away.

dreamcompiler 6y ago
Moving to another country is quite difficult unless you are sponsored by an employer there, have dual citizenship, or are rich. Sure you can fly there, but your tourist visa will run out in a few weeks and they will kick you out if they can find you. So now you're on the run, and good luck finding a job, renting an apartment, or getting health care with an expired tourist visa. Oh and if you're an American, you won't be able to open an account in a local bank because American banking laws control all banks everywhere. The above are generalizations and some countries are easier to move to than others. And all of them IMO are much more difficult than deleting Facebook.
selectodude 6y ago
I haven't bought anything off Amazon in awhile. I'm sure I still use AWS when I browse the web but I'm not militant in my lack of support. Hopefully they move somewhere else, but it's fine regardless. I'd be on the next flight out if there was some sort of undocumented American community somewhere in Western Europe or something. But that simply doesn't exist.
- dash2 6y ago
  Last I looked, they were all in Berlin, pushing up the rent and talking about their startup.
  - selectodude 6y ago

umvi 6y ago

What if a Twitter mob follows individuals around and prevents them from finding jobs because of some speech they said earlier?

krapp 6y ago
Employers have the right to hire or not hire whomever they want barring discrimination against protected classes, based on whatever criteria they want to consider relevant. "Person who said a stupid thing on the internet" is not a protected class. A Twitter mob doesn't have any objective power to prevent anyone from finding employment. They do, however, have free speech rights which include the right to communicate with someone's potential employer and argue that they should not be hired. If literally every employer decides not to hire someone based solely on what that mob says, then (notwithstanding how ridiculous that scenario would be in real life) that's possibly a labor rights issue more than a free speech issue.
- mrkstu 6y ago
  And this singular issue may be the genesis of the rebirth of unions in a modern context.
  - Proziam 6y ago
    I have never seen a Twitter mob manage to avoid the use of libelous claims. This begs the question, what could be done to protect people from online mobs? What relief do you think unions could provide?
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      "things you think are false" and "libelous" are, in the US, vastly different standards.
      - Proziam 6y ago
        I'm familiar with the standards and I stand by my assessment with full confidence. Twitter mobs routinely make up facts and spread completely unfounded misinformation that is demonstrably contrary to what evidence suggests. That's 3/4 of the criteria right then and there. [0] To prove prima facie defamation, a plaintiff must show four things: 1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement. Now what you need to do is show damages. Lost your job? Deplatformed or demonetized? Vendors, partners, or clients cut ties? Victim of harassment (online or otherwise)? [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation

jayd16 6y ago

>The writers of the constitution understood that if you didn't like doing business with a company you could just take your business to their competitor. Is there actually something in the Federalist Papers talking about free market competition? I'm not aware they considered this at all.