4 ms·

I'm not seeking alternative truth. Everyone cheers for Twitter because they think they are going to censor people in a way they agree with. But what about the d

I'm not seeking alternative truth. Everyone cheers for Twitter because they think they are going to censor people in a way they agree with. But what about the day that changes? What about the day they decide to censor you instead? On one hand, I agree that businesses should be free to operate as they like & you can vote with your feet if you don't like the rules. However, we also have to be realistic about the fact that the largest tech corporations are now more powerful than most countries. Opting out isn't a very practical solution.

_qulr 6y ago
> the largest tech corporations are now more powerful than most countries I think this is fundamentally the problem, and not free speech. Sites like Twitter and Facebook are of unprecedented historical size. Nobody really worried about whether some little discussion forum allows free speech or censors itself. But Twitter and Facebook want to become "the world's discussion forum", and I'm not sure that's even a thing that should exist. You can't really have free speech if there's only a small number of platforms for speech.
SQueeeeeL 6y ago
Then maybe vote in better people who actually give a shit and break up tech monopolies, otherwise we're just gonna live in hell world. The Clinton's should've broken it up in the 90's and Bush's in the 2000's; but they never went all the way and we've seen this behavior continue too the current admin.
krapp 6y ago
>But what about the day that changes? What about the day they decide to censor you instead? What about it? People get banned from Twitter all the time - literally every hosted platform and service moderates and bans content as they see fit. The terms of service you agreed to when using that platform likely includes phrases like "for any reason" and "in perpetuity throughout the universe." So I guess I make another account? Or go somewhere else? That's not exactly the boot of fascism stomping on your face forever. >However, we also have to be realistic about the fact that the largest tech corporations are now more powerful than most countries. No they aren't. Countries have armies and the monopoly on violence. Countries can arrest you, torture you, confiscate your possessions, make your beliefs illegal, and murder you. The only thing Twitter can possibly do to me is delete my account or ban me. They only control their one platform, they don't control the internet or the entirety of media. They're not going to send me to the gulag or throw me into the ovens. They're not going to erase me like Stalin. To say that any social media platform is more powerful than most countries is ridiculous.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > That's not exactly the boot of fascism stomping on your face forever. Alright. Let's say that all of the major social media platforms ban any discussion of raising their taxes, or enacting more regulation on them, or let's say they straight up ban major politicians from the platform. Oh, and also there is no other significant competitor that matters, and it is unlikely that any competitors will pop up anytime soon. Are you just OK with that? You are just going to say "well, I guess it is their platform, and they can do what they want, and it doesn't matter that no competitor has any significant chance of being successful". > They only control their one platform, they don't control the internet Ok, now what is almost all of the major platforms do it, and there are no serious competitors? Let's expand this out even further. What if Walmart did the same thing? Along with multiple other grocery stores. You want to raise their taxes, well sorry, you probably aren't going to be able to buy food from any major grocery store. Or how about if common carrier laws were removed and your power company did it? Or the water company, now that this is legal? Your passive acceptance of this type of being can be extrapolated out to horrifying results.
  - krapp 6y ago
    >Let's say that all of the major social media platforms ban any discussion of raising their taxes, or enacting more regulation on them, or let's say they straight up ban major politicians from the platform Unless we're talking about a situation where a government controls the internet and makes it illegal for anyone but those social media sites to set up a server or host content, then that might create an immediate market demand for alternatives and those alternatives would appear, although alternatives would very likely already exist. >Oh, and also there is no other significant competitor that matters, and it is unlikely that any competitors will pop up anytime soon. You keep piling on qualifiers like "significant" and "serious" yet before social media silos it was entirely possible to reach millions of people and go viral with hosted forums and personal webpages. Hacker News alone gets a ton of traffic and it's hardly mainstream. What will happen is that the web will adapt as it always has. It's not as big a problem as you make it out to be. Don't confuse the size of these sites' userbases with proportional degree of control over anything outside of their domain. >Ok, now what is almost all of the major platforms do it, and there are no serious competitors? >Let's expand this out even further. What if Walmart did the same thing? Along with multiple other grocery stores. >You want to raise their taxes, well sorry, you probably aren't going to be able to buy food from any major grocery store. (...) >Your passive acceptance of this type of being can be extrapolated out to horrifying results. Everything can be extrapolated out to horrifying results if you try hard enough and care little enough about reality. But your scenario in which every social media site (including those hosted in other countries,) and every businesses and government utilities and services conspire to control all forms of communication and deprive people of basic services as a means of oppression is so far removed from any conceivable reality that I have to question whether you're commenting in good faith. Otherwise, you're doing a good job of making my point for me.
nobody9999 6y ago
>Opting out isn't a very practical solution. It works for me. I don't use Twitter (or Facebook for that matter) and I don't lose anything by not doing so. and so, why do you believe that? I'm not being combative or snarky here. I honestly don't understand why not using Twitter isn't "practical."

_qulr 6y ago

> the largest tech corporations are now more powerful than most countries I think this is fundamentally the problem, and not free speech. Sites like Twitter and Facebook are of unprecedented historical size. Nobody really worried about whether some little discussion forum allows free speech or censors itself. But Twitter and Facebook want to become "the world's discussion forum", and I'm not sure that's even a thing that should exist. You can't really have free speech if there's only a small number of platforms for speech.

SQueeeeeL 6y ago

Then maybe vote in better people who actually give a shit and break up tech monopolies, otherwise we're just gonna live in hell world. The Clinton's should've broken it up in the 90's and Bush's in the 2000's; but they never went all the way and we've seen this behavior continue too the current admin.

krapp 6y ago

>But what about the day that changes? What about the day they decide to censor you instead? What about it? People get banned from Twitter all the time - literally every hosted platform and service moderates and bans content as they see fit. The terms of service you agreed to when using that platform likely includes phrases like "for any reason" and "in perpetuity throughout the universe." So I guess I make another account? Or go somewhere else? That's not exactly the boot of fascism stomping on your face forever. >However, we also have to be realistic about the fact that the largest tech corporations are now more powerful than most countries. No they aren't. Countries have armies and the monopoly on violence. Countries can arrest you, torture you, confiscate your possessions, make your beliefs illegal, and murder you. The only thing Twitter can possibly do to me is delete my account or ban me. They only control their one platform, they don't control the internet or the entirety of media. They're not going to send me to the gulag or throw me into the ovens. They're not going to erase me like Stalin. To say that any social media platform is more powerful than most countries is ridiculous.

stale2002 6y ago
> That's not exactly the boot of fascism stomping on your face forever. Alright. Let's say that all of the major social media platforms ban any discussion of raising their taxes, or enacting more regulation on them, or let's say they straight up ban major politicians from the platform. Oh, and also there is no other significant competitor that matters, and it is unlikely that any competitors will pop up anytime soon. Are you just OK with that? You are just going to say "well, I guess it is their platform, and they can do what they want, and it doesn't matter that no competitor has any significant chance of being successful". > They only control their one platform, they don't control the internet Ok, now what is almost all of the major platforms do it, and there are no serious competitors? Let's expand this out even further. What if Walmart did the same thing? Along with multiple other grocery stores. You want to raise their taxes, well sorry, you probably aren't going to be able to buy food from any major grocery store. Or how about if common carrier laws were removed and your power company did it? Or the water company, now that this is legal? Your passive acceptance of this type of being can be extrapolated out to horrifying results.
- krapp 6y ago
  >Let's say that all of the major social media platforms ban any discussion of raising their taxes, or enacting more regulation on them, or let's say they straight up ban major politicians from the platform Unless we're talking about a situation where a government controls the internet and makes it illegal for anyone but those social media sites to set up a server or host content, then that might create an immediate market demand for alternatives and those alternatives would appear, although alternatives would very likely already exist. >Oh, and also there is no other significant competitor that matters, and it is unlikely that any competitors will pop up anytime soon. You keep piling on qualifiers like "significant" and "serious" yet before social media silos it was entirely possible to reach millions of people and go viral with hosted forums and personal webpages. Hacker News alone gets a ton of traffic and it's hardly mainstream. What will happen is that the web will adapt as it always has. It's not as big a problem as you make it out to be. Don't confuse the size of these sites' userbases with proportional degree of control over anything outside of their domain. >Ok, now what is almost all of the major platforms do it, and there are no serious competitors? >Let's expand this out even further. What if Walmart did the same thing? Along with multiple other grocery stores. >You want to raise their taxes, well sorry, you probably aren't going to be able to buy food from any major grocery store. (...) >Your passive acceptance of this type of being can be extrapolated out to horrifying results. Everything can be extrapolated out to horrifying results if you try hard enough and care little enough about reality. But your scenario in which every social media site (including those hosted in other countries,) and every businesses and government utilities and services conspire to control all forms of communication and deprive people of basic services as a means of oppression is so far removed from any conceivable reality that I have to question whether you're commenting in good faith. Otherwise, you're doing a good job of making my point for me.

nobody9999 6y ago

>Opting out isn't a very practical solution. It works for me. I don't use Twitter (or Facebook for that matter) and I don't lose anything by not doing so. and so, why do you believe that? I'm not being combative or snarky here. I honestly don't understand why not using Twitter isn't "practical."