4 ms·

This could destroy the tech oligopolies. This would tangle them in unlimited court cases allowing for smaller sites with smaller pockets [1] to flourish. I im

This could destroy the tech oligopolies. This would tangle them in unlimited court cases allowing for smaller sites with smaller pockets [1] to flourish. I imagine they will fight this to the death - or drag it in court at least until November elections for a pro-Oligopoly (Biden) camp to take over. [1] Lawyers hate small pockets.

ipsum2 6y ago
> [1] Lawyers hate small pockets. Judging from patent trolls (technically their lawyers) suing small startups, I don't see how thats the case, unless each website was serving <100 people and making 0 revenue.
commandlinefan 6y ago
If this does destroy tech oligopolies, they'll have nobody to blame for it but themselves. They've had over a decade to prove that they're fair and impartial and, if anything, have worked overtime to prove the opposite.
- esoterica 6y ago
  Private organizations have zero obligation to be fair and impartial. If you want a company to be run differently, start your own. It's funny how conservatives were totally on board with deregulation and perfectly fine with corporations steamrolling every one else as long as they were aligned with conservative objectives. Then the moment a powerful corporate faction with liberal-ish sensibilities emerges, they freak out and abandon all their fake principles and run crying to the nanny state to save them from the big evil corporations.
  - xpe 6y ago
    1. Please note that ‘obligation’ is not the only standard at play. Companies exist in a social and economic context. (I have previous comments on this topic that can be easily found.) 2. The ‘if you want a company to be run differently, start your own’ argument is tiresome and weak. There are (and should be) many mechanisms to influence corporate behavior. 3. Even the pre-Trump Republican Party has long taken flack from libertarians who essentially argue that one core principle should guide their political philosophy. 3B. Personally, I have not found a strong philosophical grounding to claim that political philosophies should be reducible to one core thought from which everything neatly derives. (That would be nice, wouldn’t it?) In my experience, figuring out public policy decisions is fundamentally more complex than that due to the interplay of conflicting values and moralities.
    - leetcrew 6y ago
      > libertarians who essentially argue that one core principle should guide their political philosophy. this isn't really true of libertarianism even. the word "aggression" from the NAP does a lot of heavy lifting and is subject to a lot of different interpretations.
      - ByteJockey 6y ago
        I've always heard aggression defined as roughly: Initiating or threatening any forceful action against an individual or their property Is your complaint that the boundaries of "threatening" are too squishy?
        leetcrew 6y ago
        yes, "threatening" and even "forceful" are subject to interpretation. suppose you see me walking around town with a rifle. is that threatening? maybe not if you're comfortable with open carry, but what if I do it on the sidewalk in front of your house? is it a violation of NAP to not wear a mask during a pandemic? what if I've already tested positive for covid and am refusing to quarantine? or what if I know that I have a detectable viral load for HIV and have sex without informing my partner? another interesting example: if you accept the claim that racist speech is an implicit threat of violence, you can use NAP to justify deplatforming. you can make NAP imply almost any position you want, depending on how you interpret it. only a very specific and narrow interpretation implies the typical positions held by (US) libertarians.
        ByteJockey 6y ago
        That's fair. When it comes up, it's usually limited to explicit threats. Basically if you don't flat out say "I'm going to do X", that's not really counted. But I can see why it's confusing for an outsider.
      - xpe 6y ago
        There is a range of libertarian thought, but all share one principle: liberty. The ‘non-aggression principle’, in my experience of libertarianism at least, is not as central / common across libertarian writings. Wikipedia: > Libertarianism (from French: libertaire, "libertarian"; from Latin: libertas, "freedom") is a political philosophy and movement that upholds liberty as a core principle.[1] Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, emphasizing free association, freedom of choice, individualism and voluntary association.[2] Libertarianism shares a skepticism of authority and state power, but libertarians diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing economic and political systems. Various schools of libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling for the restriction or dissolution of coercive social institutions. Different categorizations have been used to distinguish various forms of libertarianism.[3][4] This is done to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital, usually along left–right or socialist–capitalist lines.[5]
  - commandlinefan 6y ago
    > the nanny state That doesn't make much sense in this context - the "nanny state" refers to the government taking care of your physical needs, like a nanny. But even if you sweep all government regulation under the blanket of "the nanny state", that's still not what's being proposed here: what they're proposing is removing protections previously afforded by the government because they've been abusing them for so long. In essence, all that's being proposed is that everybody plays by the same set of rules.
    - esoterica 6y ago
      What censorship-related rules are they not playing by now that everyone else is?
sixstringtheory 6y ago
It could also have the reverse effect, because the prospect of unlimited court cases represents a very high financial bar for small newcomers to deal with. The oligopoly already has the funds to deal with it. And/or they comply, creating an ossified, state-controlled set of social networks. Yay.

ipsum2 6y ago

> [1] Lawyers hate small pockets. Judging from patent trolls (technically their lawyers) suing small startups, I don't see how thats the case, unless each website was serving <100 people and making 0 revenue.

commandlinefan 6y ago

If this does destroy tech oligopolies, they'll have nobody to blame for it but themselves. They've had over a decade to prove that they're fair and impartial and, if anything, have worked overtime to prove the opposite.

esoterica 6y ago
Private organizations have zero obligation to be fair and impartial. If you want a company to be run differently, start your own. It's funny how conservatives were totally on board with deregulation and perfectly fine with corporations steamrolling every one else as long as they were aligned with conservative objectives. Then the moment a powerful corporate faction with liberal-ish sensibilities emerges, they freak out and abandon all their fake principles and run crying to the nanny state to save them from the big evil corporations.
- xpe 6y ago
  1. Please note that ‘obligation’ is not the only standard at play. Companies exist in a social and economic context. (I have previous comments on this topic that can be easily found.) 2. The ‘if you want a company to be run differently, start your own’ argument is tiresome and weak. There are (and should be) many mechanisms to influence corporate behavior. 3. Even the pre-Trump Republican Party has long taken flack from libertarians who essentially argue that one core principle should guide their political philosophy. 3B. Personally, I have not found a strong philosophical grounding to claim that political philosophies should be reducible to one core thought from which everything neatly derives. (That would be nice, wouldn’t it?) In my experience, figuring out public policy decisions is fundamentally more complex than that due to the interplay of conflicting values and moralities.
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    > libertarians who essentially argue that one core principle should guide their political philosophy. this isn't really true of libertarianism even. the word "aggression" from the NAP does a lot of heavy lifting and is subject to a lot of different interpretations.
    - ByteJockey 6y ago
      I've always heard aggression defined as roughly: Initiating or threatening any forceful action against an individual or their property Is your complaint that the boundaries of "threatening" are too squishy?
      - leetcrew 6y ago
        yes, "threatening" and even "forceful" are subject to interpretation. suppose you see me walking around town with a rifle. is that threatening? maybe not if you're comfortable with open carry, but what if I do it on the sidewalk in front of your house? is it a violation of NAP to not wear a mask during a pandemic? what if I've already tested positive for covid and am refusing to quarantine? or what if I know that I have a detectable viral load for HIV and have sex without informing my partner? another interesting example: if you accept the claim that racist speech is an implicit threat of violence, you can use NAP to justify deplatforming. you can make NAP imply almost any position you want, depending on how you interpret it. only a very specific and narrow interpretation implies the typical positions held by (US) libertarians.
        ByteJockey 6y ago
        That's fair. When it comes up, it's usually limited to explicit threats. Basically if you don't flat out say "I'm going to do X", that's not really counted. But I can see why it's confusing for an outsider.
    - xpe 6y ago
      There is a range of libertarian thought, but all share one principle: liberty. The ‘non-aggression principle’, in my experience of libertarianism at least, is not as central / common across libertarian writings. Wikipedia: > Libertarianism (from French: libertaire, "libertarian"; from Latin: libertas, "freedom") is a political philosophy and movement that upholds liberty as a core principle.[1] Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and political freedom, emphasizing free association, freedom of choice, individualism and voluntary association.[2] Libertarianism shares a skepticism of authority and state power, but libertarians diverge on the scope of their opposition to existing economic and political systems. Various schools of libertarian thought offer a range of views regarding the legitimate functions of state and private power, often calling for the restriction or dissolution of coercive social institutions. Different categorizations have been used to distinguish various forms of libertarianism.[3][4] This is done to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital, usually along left–right or socialist–capitalist lines.[5]
- commandlinefan 6y ago
  > the nanny state That doesn't make much sense in this context - the "nanny state" refers to the government taking care of your physical needs, like a nanny. But even if you sweep all government regulation under the blanket of "the nanny state", that's still not what's being proposed here: what they're proposing is removing protections previously afforded by the government because they've been abusing them for so long. In essence, all that's being proposed is that everybody plays by the same set of rules.
  - esoterica 6y ago
    What censorship-related rules are they not playing by now that everyone else is?

sixstringtheory 6y ago

It could also have the reverse effect, because the prospect of unlimited court cases represents a very high financial bar for small newcomers to deal with. The oligopoly already has the funds to deal with it. And/or they comply, creating an ossified, state-controlled set of social networks. Yay.