3 ms·

> We shouldn't be having Zuckerberg or Pichai's opinion on the relative moral differences between Leila Khaled and the CCP affect what speech we can hear regard

> We shouldn't be having Zuckerberg or Pichai's opinion on the relative moral differences between Leila Khaled and the CCP affect what speech we can hear regarding it. Then don't use Zuckerberg or Pichai's website. Your website works on the exact same internet as theirs.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
Which is fine until Zuckerberg buys the other websites you might use too, or Pichai stops listing the ones you do use in the search results on the search engine that 92% of your readers use.
- root_axis 6y ago
  Zuckerberg will never buy out your blog. Nobody is owed a spot on google's search index and there is a finite number of spots on the first page of a given search query.
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > Zuckerberg will never buy out your blog. Maybe if you host it on a server which is physically in your house, but most ordinary people don't really have the chops for that, or the resources. Comcast tends to frown upon it. And when they use Instagram because they didn't like Facebook, that's still Zuckerberg. > Nobody is owed a spot on google's search index and there is a finite number of spots on the first page of a given search query. They can have editorial control or they can have a monopoly, but not both. But agreed that trying to regulate search results is a fool's game. Dissolving the monopoly is almost certainly the better way to fix this class of problem, across the board.
ponker 6y ago
What if McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy’s, Taco Bell, KFC, and Subway all decided to ban people whose name started with R? I’d be out of luck on any road trips and would have to look harder and pay more for a meal, and it would be grossly unfair. You can say “it’s their restaurant their rules” but I think that the law should tell them to get fucked, and I think that most would agree.
- root_axis 6y ago
  > What if McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy’s, Taco Bell, KFC, and Subway all decided to ban people whose name started with R This isn't a good analogy for several reasons. To start with, restaurants exist in physical space, so losing access to a popular restaurant chain makes it more difficult to eat since you might have to travel farther to find food. This isn't an issue for a website since the cost to "travel" to any http website is always the same regardless of the site. The next problem is that you're comparing food to use of a website. It might be problematic if all the fast food in your town is owned by a handful of companies that coordinate to exclude you, since we all recognize that food is a basic human need, having your post banned from a website however is a meaningless triviality in comparison. Finally, it is not convincing to suggest that being banned by 6 very popular fast food restaurants is a serious harm society should seek to prevent, just eat somewhere else, there are many alternative options and many new ones appearing daily, just like with various internet websites.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

Which is fine until Zuckerberg buys the other websites you might use too, or Pichai stops listing the ones you do use in the search results on the search engine that 92% of your readers use.

root_axis 6y ago
Zuckerberg will never buy out your blog. Nobody is owed a spot on google's search index and there is a finite number of spots on the first page of a given search query.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > Zuckerberg will never buy out your blog. Maybe if you host it on a server which is physically in your house, but most ordinary people don't really have the chops for that, or the resources. Comcast tends to frown upon it. And when they use Instagram because they didn't like Facebook, that's still Zuckerberg. > Nobody is owed a spot on google's search index and there is a finite number of spots on the first page of a given search query. They can have editorial control or they can have a monopoly, but not both. But agreed that trying to regulate search results is a fool's game. Dissolving the monopoly is almost certainly the better way to fix this class of problem, across the board.

ponker 6y ago

What if McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy’s, Taco Bell, KFC, and Subway all decided to ban people whose name started with R? I’d be out of luck on any road trips and would have to look harder and pay more for a meal, and it would be grossly unfair. You can say “it’s their restaurant their rules” but I think that the law should tell them to get fucked, and I think that most would agree.

root_axis 6y ago
> What if McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy’s, Taco Bell, KFC, and Subway all decided to ban people whose name started with R This isn't a good analogy for several reasons. To start with, restaurants exist in physical space, so losing access to a popular restaurant chain makes it more difficult to eat since you might have to travel farther to find food. This isn't an issue for a website since the cost to "travel" to any http website is always the same regardless of the site. The next problem is that you're comparing food to use of a website. It might be problematic if all the fast food in your town is owned by a handful of companies that coordinate to exclude you, since we all recognize that food is a basic human need, having your post banned from a website however is a meaningless triviality in comparison. Finally, it is not convincing to suggest that being banned by 6 very popular fast food restaurants is a serious harm society should seek to prevent, just eat somewhere else, there are many alternative options and many new ones appearing daily, just like with various internet websites.