17 ms·
I've read comments saying, "if you don't like Apple's policies, build a new smartphone." Are these people aware that that the same type of argument lead to the
by mjfl 6y ago
I've read comments saying, "if you don't like Apple's policies, build a new smartphone." Are these people aware that that the same type of argument lead to the creation of parler: "if you don't like twitter censorship, build a new platform". It will be built. What then?
At this point we are heading towards a complete mitosis of our information channels based on political ideology.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- yanderekko 6y ago>It will be built. I don't think we're going to get a "red" phone. Seems more likely that we'll just see people get Parler on Android through channels other than the Play Store. >What then? There's a lot of additional attack vectors. We've already seen Amazon move to boot Parler off its web infrastructure. If that fails to kill the platform, we'll likely see attacks on anything related to its financing, or things like CloudFlare protection. If that fails I could see progressives abandoning net neutrality to lean on ISPs to block traffic. In reality I don't think we'll get all the way there, but we'll get close enough that a stable "red social media" ecosystem will emerge that's out of reach of cancellation. In the long run this may work out worse for everyone.
- alfl 6y agoGab announced a phone today.
- blisterpeanuts 6y agoThat's interesting news. Do you have a link?
- shadowgovt 6y agoAmazon has announced they are pulling Parler off their web infrastructure. They are free to rent their own hosting from another provider, or buy their own computers and peer to the internet.
- yanderekko 6y agoYep. Minutes behind. Curious to see how long this knocks Parler offline.
- justaguy88 6y agoThe pirate bay manages to stay online
- wu_tang_chris 6y agoUntil you people go after their peer, right? Then it’s “level3 is a private company”.
- shadowgovt 6y agoYep. At the the of the day, the internet is a network and a network requires two parties. Turns out the net's administrators interpret some signal as damage and also route around it.
- dragonwriter 6y ago> Until you people go after their peer, right? Then it’s “level3 is a private company”. Hey, if only the FCC rule that ISPs should be obligated to permit all legal content and applications without discrimination was still in place. Who are the idiots that got rid of that?
- bra-ket 6y agoI think the best plan of action is creating a new decentralized free speech platform, as resilient as a cockroach, blockchain or scihub. I’ve sent a message to sama & pg asking to add this to the YC list of ‘requests for startups’. I hope they hear. For those lurking, this is a tremendous opportunity and real need as you have half the country desperate to let their voice be heard while being aggressively silenced and de-platformed for political reasons. You can have a monopoly on free speech.. just kidding , purely decentralized. Hit me up with your hot ideas and Go chops.
- mc32 6y agoI think you are right but people aren't thinking long term. This will force people into camps and the camps will not see each other creating a massively re-enforcing echo chamber that will further inflame things. That said, while I do vigorously support free political speech -even disagreeable political speech (if you don't then it's "speech I agree with"), unfortunately, you have people who don't know where to draw the line and cross into vile threats and other heinous crime. It's a case of why we can't have nice things. A few people ruin it for the many. But yeah, this is going to be disastrous for us. However, the social media companies and the regular media made this bed and they are happy swines right now. I hope other countries wise up to especially social media platforms (be they from the US, China, Russia, etc) and build their own to avoid having large countries influence how smaller countries should conduct themselves. That is basically, a few corporations are setting the tone of discussion for all people except China, North Korea and Iran (who, in retrospect, "wisely" banned them). That's not a good thing. They are the culture barons and they are not shy about using their power to steer things.
- yanderekko 6y ago>This will force people into camps and the camps will not see each other creating a massively re-enforcing echo chamber that will further inflame things. Honestly it's already happened in my view, even when conservatives were not being purged wholesale from these platforms by administrators they were already being purged from user-moderated communities on these platforms. This is largely about people who already don't engage with conservatives wanting to leverage whatever power they can in order to disrupt the ability to communicate and associate with one another online. The pretext is of course stopping violence, but even a lot of people on the left see the rank hypocrisy of this hand-wringing given the kind of rhetoric that the left has been producing over the past several years.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- erikpukinskis 6y agoThis has nothing to do with conservatism. I am banned from /r/conservative for posting conservative beliefs. Don't be fooled by the labels being used. Being anti-left is not the same as being conservative. Fascism, just to give one example, is anti-left but it's not conservative in any traditional American sense of the word. Maybe you could more accurately say this is about the "right wing"? Actual dyed-in-the-wool conservatives seem to want nothing to do with Trump or Qanon or any of this stuff, which seems to have little to nothing to do with conservative values. I see a lot of conservatives turning towards Biden and Harris, who to me appear to be actually very conservative. Harris is a literal cop, and Biden's platform is basically "let's get back to normal". I'm not a fan, but I understand why conservatives would like them.
- scythe 6y ago>we'll get close enough that a stable "red social media" ecosystem will emerge that's out of reach of cancellation. In the long run this may work out worse for everyone. I would expect the same, but substitute "worse" for "better". Trumpism lives on conflict and trolling. There's nobody to troll on Parler. It's affective politics as much as ideological: they may believe awful things, but they're mostly out to have a good time. Parler is like a video game with all the cheat codes on; it will entertain them at first, but they'll get bored quickly. What they'll do next I'm not sure, but the whole political success of Trumpism was based on turnout, which was based on enthusiasm. Facebook and Twitter are enthusiasm-generating machines, and cutting Trump supporters off is not much different than cutting off a bar patron who's clearly had seven too many. They might make new social networks, but they won't be as good, and that's enough.
- lawnchair_larry 6y agoIn no way does this describe conservative discourse. This just demonstrates how far apart the bubbles are growing.
- scythe 6y agoI've given them far more than the benefit of the doubt. If you think your movement can survive without trolling, you're free to demonstrate that over the coming months.
- shripadk 6y agoThis is what happens when you live in your own bubble and don't even bother to talk to Trump supporters and look past the memes and trolling. The memes and trolling were a necessary part of "waking the sheeple" discourse from what I understand Trumpism is. There is a World beyond all that which only those who have looked past the memes and trolling can actually understand. But given that you live in your own safe bubble you'll never know it. That's the whole point of this situation. We are already living in a balkanized internet where everyone has found their ideological safe zones and no one is willing to learn and engage with the other. It is exact opposite to what the internet was in the 90s and 2000s where you would actively seek out people with different ideologies and characters - especially the odd and crazy ones. It is sad to see this happen because I have seen how internet evolved since the 90s. It was a fun place. It is no more. Now we have mapped our real life to virtual life to such an extent that we have melted the barrier that existed in the beginning. Internet was a place where you could assume any identity and would get respect from everyone and be treated the same. A 13 year old kid could interact with a 50 year old adult on programming topics and both wouldn't know their real identities except for the discussion at hand. That internet doesn't exist anymore.
- njudah 6y ago> If that fails I could see progressives abandoning net neutrality to lean on ISPs to block traffic. Funny considering of course that republicans abandoned net neutrality years ago.. Now maybe they will support it?
- supertrope 6y agoRepublicans want to deregulate ISPs but regulate .com because the most influential .com companies lean left. It's as simple as that. They were happy getting rid of the "fairness doctrine" for broadcast TV but want it back for .com platforms. Trump is just the most ugly manifestation of this attack on non-right wing media and platforms: he threatened to veto an unrelated military spending bill unless Congress repealed Section 230 in hopes of heaping a DMCA-like level of liability onto Twitter et al. The actual result would be the neutering of the Internet for everyone: no comment sections if discussion was not the major feature, heavy moderation of anything that might offend anyone.
- cycloptic 6y ago>but we'll get close enough that a stable "red social media" ecosystem will emerge that's out of reach of cancellation No it won't, because that platform already exists: Twitter. I follow lots of conservatives on Twitter who have no need to ditch the platform, because they actually are decent humans who don't promote racism, unhinged conspiracy theories, violence and sedition. All of those things are now confirmed as losing strategies for the party; businesses doubling down on a losing strategy will fail. This idea, that a certain person's particular brand of bad faith trolling represents all of republicanism, is senseless and divisive and it needs to stop. Retreating into a bubble with this attitude is going to be even more destructive for the republican party and make it even more vulnerable to getting hoodwinked by these bullshit salesmen. (Disclaimer: I don't personally belong to any political parties)
- pmontra 6y agoThe long run is difficult to forecast. My hope is that somebody, maybe the next Republican administration whenever it happens, will make walled gardens illegal. I never liked them and it's the main reason for I don't buy anything Apple. Android has sideloading, let's hope Google won't take it away from us. If walled gardens go away there will be at least one good consequence in what happened on January 6. Everything else looks bad for both sides. A blog post was posted to HN about one month ago, somebody from Sri Lanka writing about what happened there after the losing party contested the result of an election. The point was that Americans were blind to the consequences of destroying the legitimacy of the electoral process. It is easy to see now that he was right and there is a lot of space open for further escalations. I don't live in the USA but what happens in the USA comes to all the Western World, more sooner than later. Edit. The post is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25171844 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25171844 and I see now that it was flagged after I read it. Maybe we can see that it was prescient enough not to be flagged again now.
- vr46 6y agoPolitical ideology that is unethical deserves no platform, cheating, killing, attacking, are all examples of that. Nobody deserves to get a platform, and nobody gets to trample other peoples’ rights either.
- ekianjo 6y agoSo was everyone on Parler guilty by default? That's an interesting way of seeing the world.
- arentyouspecial 6y agoConsidering their target audience, yes.
- vr46 6y agoHere’s the irony: Parler has been banning “liberals” and “leftists” for months. It’s an overtly political platform and clearly for a particular political ideology.
- iambateman 6y agoThere’s nothing wrong with enabling a platform which is overtly political. If I want to start a libertarian-only dating site...why not? There is everything wrong with enabling a platform which actively supports violence.
- centimeter 6y ago> There is everything wrong with enabling a platform which actively supports violence. Socialism as an ideology actively and inherently supports violence, but it has plenty of platforms in the US.
- eyelidlessness 6y agoLet’s hear about how socialism as an ideology actively and inherently supports violence. I’m genuinely curious.
- Daishiman 6y agoYes, fascists living in their own bubble end up congregating just with fascists because most of the rest of society doesn't want anything to do with them. This is a recurring theme in history.
- trident5000 6y agoYou keep saying that word but I'm not sure you know what it means.
- Daishiman 6y agoMy family has had to live through the Nazi invasion of my grandparents' home country, and my parents had to live through multiple military dictatorships. Throw in Umberto Eco's essay on Ur-fascism and yeah, I just might have an idea of what I'm talking about.
- trident5000 6y agoOk, well my parents for instance are on Parler. They are the furthest things you would ever know from fascists and have friends from all different backgrounds. Lets stop painting 70 million voters or even an entire platform with 6 million people as facists. Twitter has a lot of shitty people on there as well but we dont use mass labels.
- rriepe 6y ago6 million? No way the number is that high.
- trident5000 6y ago8 million and half are active. Thats what I'm getting on a search anyway.
- Daishiman 6y ago
- ekianjo 6y ago> At this point we are heading towards a complete mitosis of our information channels based on political ideology. Not just information channels. This is probably going to go well beyond just news: next, businesses. The orthodoxy does not know boundaries.
- shadowgovt 6y agoI'd compare it to the "red scare," except at no point during that era did "reds" storm Congress and set up a noose outside. Red-caps, on the other hand... Perhaps there is a situation where a society says "no further" and is correct to actively shun a political stance. In fact, that's been true in the US for decades... It's real hard to be a KKK chapter without pulling a lot of FBI scrutiny.
- dabbledash 6y ago“Perhaps there is a situation where a society says "no further" and is correct to actively shun a political stance.” Just remember that we live in a world where a subset of people genuinely believed Obama is a Stalinist. Once you define whatever is beyond the pale, people will just shove everything they don’t like into that bucket.
- shadowgovt 6y agoThey still believe it. And yes, when these times come, people get forced to get off the fence and prove they aren't part of the problem. But these times do come. Congress was attacked. Threats need to be identified, and quickly.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- centimeter 6y ago> except at no point during that era did "reds" storm Congress They didn't need to storm congress - they just convinced the dumb proles to vote them there.
- dlrush 6y agoDead cops and civilians are not a political ideology. Don’t conflate incitement for free speech.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- madeofpalk 6y ago> Information channels based on political ideology. Is credible threats of violence, especially towards elected officials, a "political ideology" that deserves protection and promotion? You make it out as if this is an attact on Republicans or conservatists. It's not. It's an attack on extremists who are posting credible threads of extreme harm and violence on others. Is banning ISIS from platforms enough of a "slippery slope" that would prevent the ban?
- vhold 6y agoExactly, many of the people crying loudly right now are doing it from Twitter, because they have not been banned, because they did not incite any violence.
- piyush_soni 6y agoIt's not about political ideology. It's about preventing what seems to be a clear case of violence inciting posts (many websites are sharing those screenshots). This should NOT be allowed in the garb of "free speech".
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ogre_codes 6y agoParler just needs to enforce their own policies and this wouldn't be an issue. They wouldn't need to bend their will to anyone's political agenda, just enforce the policies they themselves espouse.
- illuminati1911 6y agoWhen will people ask Twitter, FB etc. to do the same?
- ogre_codes 6y agoThey could certainly do a world better, but neither were as bad as Parler who basically laid out guidelines but made zero effort to enforce them.
- aluminum96 6y agoTwitter and FB, for all their failings, appear to basically be operating in good faith (re. removing incitements toward violence). One cannot seriously say that about Parler.
- mushufasa 6y agoI thin that this misses the point. The fringes and conspiracy theorists grow by catching new people from the mainstream. If you segregate the extremists from the center, you can starve the extremists.
- ohnohell 6y agoWho decides who the the extremists are?
- ErikVandeWater 6y agoPeople who are easily swayed to hate and dismiss everyone with a different opinion.
- olliej 6y agoJust ban people who spout violence towards people for what amounts to the crime of existing, who spout conspiracies that are divorced from reality. You don’t choose who is extremist, you ban the abusive content. Extremists the mostly post that are functionally banned - that’s what Twitter does. You don’t get to report “this person is abusive” just tweets that have to be abusive on their own.
- aluminum96 6y agoRegardless of the precise definition, it seems quite clear that it ought to include those who organize premeditated violence. This is not exactly a slippery slope.
- seppin 6y agoIf you are so dedicated to having a platform that hosts direct calls for violence and murder, then create your own hosting service too.
- eyelidlessness 6y agoWhat happens when the 5G conspiracy nuts want this hypothetical new platform to be forced to use old decommissioning networks? Appease them to keep the platform together, or accept that probably most of them will shut up and use the newer networks and let the rest go their separate ways?
- neogodless 6y agoWhy wouldn't the reasons for Parler being removed from application marketplaces be extricated from the more mainstream elements of the political ideology? Why not say "hey, get out of our party! you're not welcome here. we are against the extremist views you hold, and you're making it harder for us as a party to gather and share our ideas"?
- nr2x 6y agoI'm a fairly active Twitter user and I experience it solely via the mobile website as I try to reduce the number of apps I install (and data I expose to said apps), so I don't actually think this is as monumental as people act. Furthermore, I downloaded Parler to see how it works and it's actually a pretty bad experience, janky UI, crazy latency, bad search - they've got bigger problems than the App Store.
- MichaelMoser123 6y ago> if you don't like twitter censorship, build a new platform". It will be built. What then? Even more polarization in society; both groups talking only to themselves, zero dialogue between the groups and no chance to hear an opposing opinion (you had that one with twitter). i hope this won't be the prelude to a more serious rift occuring in the real world.
- dannyw 6y agoIt’s already happened. Since reddit banned r/theDonald, followers migrated over to their own site, thedonald.win. They are now much bigger in traffic, and called for storming of the capital building on Jan 6th. Because only Trump supporters really visit that site, no one called it out despite the Jan 6th events being organised by millions right in the open. If reddit didn’t ban TD, this wouldn’t have happened. It wouldn’t have become this radicalised.
- justaguy88 6y agoThis isn't reddit's fault
- dannyw 6y agoIf politicians fail to pass gun reform and there’s a miss shooting, you could argue that both (1) the mass shooter and (2) politicians are at fault. Please explain why you think reddit has no fault in this, when their moderation decisions has directly led to the largest radical right-wing community on the internet. Reddit could have contained TD. It chose to say “not my problem”?, and let them make an even more radical website.
- ARandomerDude 6y ago> there's a miss shooting The good news is no one will get hurt! :)
- biaachmonkie 6y agoThat is some pretty twisted logic you have there. This same ass-backwards logic is being used by some now to blame Joe Biden for the Capitol Riot. How dare Biden have won the election, he should have let trump win to prevent Trumps violent mob from sacking the Capitol Building. No one should give in to the violent, hateful, irrational and seditious mob of Trump supporting Fascist thugs that are increasingly making up more and more of the right wing. They need to be crushed politically and shoved back into their basements. Capitulating to these Fascist thugs even in the slightest has shown that it will only lead to them being emboldened and pushing further and further into Authoritarianism. They don't care about Democracy or Rule of Law, only forcing their views on the rest of society violently!
- smsm42 6y agoNow that Parler also is booted from AWS, it's basically "build a new internet". "Build your own services if you like free speech so much" was never a honest proposition. It was a "shut up" proposition - because when, to the surprise of the censors, it was built and was successful, they took all possible measures to destroy it. They were never for "we will have our own and you can have our own" - it always was "we will control everything and you will shut up and do what you told". Whatever are your political leanings and whatever you think of Trump or Parler - if this thing - total and absolute control of a handful of corporations over what can be spoken on the internet, and their willingness to ruthlessly exercise this control to suppress any non-censorious companies - if this thing is not scaring you, you're delusional. You probably think you will never commit wrongthink so it doesn't apply to you. Read some history, it never worked this way, it won't work this way this time either. Censorship, allowed to run free, always gets worse.
- diveanon 6y agoYour entire argument pins on this being censorship. Amazon is not a state utility. Amazon is not the internet. Amazon has the right to fire a customer. If Parler built their product without considering vendor dependencies that is on them. Frankly your argument is hyperbolic and is better suited for reddit than a forum that actually understands what it takes to build a service like Parler. While unrelated to this issue, Parler's ux and service as a whole was awful. They were collecting and storing tons of personal information and were funded by the Mercer's. Apple, Google, and Amazon are doing Parler users a favor.
- smsm42 6y agoYou are arguing with somebody who told you Amazon has no legal right to cancel the contract. That somebody is not me. > If Parler built their product without considering vendor dependencies that is on them. "You fucked up. You trusted us". (C) Parler was operating under naive assumptions that Amazon does not ban services for partisan political reasons. It was reasonable assumption in America pre-2021, but now it's clearly a different America. Where to participate in the internet, you have to pass ideological purity test. I can predict what happens next: Parler would be blocked by the majority of CDNs, payment processors and hosting/DNS providers. And you'll be saying "well, they are idiots for relying on the existing internet without considering the dependencies. They should have just built their own internet, their own banking system and their own payment system." > While unrelated to this issue, Parler's ux and service as a whole was awful. If it's unrelated, why mention it? To create an impression services with bad UX (which is not true btw, especially compared to Facebook whose UX is atrocious) deserve to be silenced? > Apple, Google, and Amazon are doing Parler users a favor. Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
- wonnage 6y agoOrrrr the right wing could learn to not be complete assholes to the point where all their providers refuse to serve them
- AniseAbyss 6y agoThat wouldn't be new. There have always been media that target specific audiences.
- snowwrestler 6y agoThe audiences won’t be the same size. The harder it gets to keep following the conversation to new platforms, the more it will only be the most hardcore people at the eventual destination. This is not a bad thing. The people who are really dedicated will still have a place to gather and communicate, but pedestrians and kids will have a lower chance of getting tricked into giving their time, money, and maybe even their lives to amoral scammers.
- bananaface 6y agoI would argue the public is at a much higher risk of being tricked by giant monopolistic media organisations with very private interests than fringe lunatics. Murdoch was bad, but at least you didn't have to communicate through his tabloids. Underneath all of this seems to be this assumption that Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey etc. are benevolent, and won't betray you. Putting aside whether that's right, it's incredibly short-sighted. Jack Dorsey owns 2% of Twitter's stock. Twitter is owned by index funds - they have control, not Jack. You don't want private equity dictating what kind of propaganda you're allowed to see.
- snowwrestler 6y agoThis is a nonsense argument because the ownership structure of Twitter has not changed in 7 years. People are not getting booted now because of who the executives or investors are, they are betting booted because of what they chose to say on Twitter. I don’t trust anyone to “not betray me.” I trust that if Twitter makes unpopular moderation decisions, they will lose in the marketplace. But if they make popular decisions, they will succeed in the marketplace, even if those decisions piss some people off. This is the basis for all platform moderation, including here on HN, or even something as simple as a grocery store asking a shouting customer to leave.
- bananaface 6y agoI understand where you're coming from but I don't think a coordinated ban of the sitting president across platforms is equivalent to a forum ban. And I don't think you think that either. Look, I'm not trying to argue this "wasn't a special case". I'm saying, it doesn't matter. If you want a president silenced, have congress vote on it, not Vanguard and Goldman Sachs. You're giving private equity the power to unilaterally decide what they deem "threatening", and I expect them to abuse that power. Like, obviously they'll abuse it, it's private equity. Why on earth wouldn't they?
- sixothree 6y agoWe can't live in a world where people are allowed to openly plot the death of other people.
- ARandomerDude 6y agoMy body my choice.
- aluminum96 6y agoThis comment does not contribute to the discussion, and in fact deliberate conflates a "hot-button" issue to score cheap political points.
- rzwitserloot 6y agoSure. If you build a new phone OS, twitter and facebook can try to stop you by not writing apps for it, or possibly even detecting that a user of your hardware is trying to visit them and block the connection. Same difference. When apple blocks an app for nebulous reasons (such as the hey.com debacle), that's annoying. When google blocks an app because the authors are running a bitcoin miner or other scam, then everybody rejoices. When the microsoft phone blocks an app because it lets you screenshare to machines running linux or apple's OS, people reach for the phone to call their lawyer or representative to start proceedings on anti-trust. When the linux phone blocks an app because they are legally obligated to do this, as a judge has informed them they are compelled to do so because the app is a marketplace for murder contracts, I think most people rejoice as well. There is no absolute rule to make sense of that. It's what society, preferably, but not neccessarily codified in law, is going to stand for. It's not an easy rule. "Prevent companies from banning anything for any reason" means you end up with marketplaces for murder and viruses/miners/user-hostile stuff. And no cheating by allowing google to paste big warnings on an app download. Who decides what text is in that warning, and who decides which user-hostile stuff warrants this banner? Apple? We're right back to where we started. If outlawing censorship is not feasible (or it is, but you're going to have to tell me how, because the obvious route leads to far greater problems), then the only other option I can think of is to break up these companies. Ensure there are many. This also does not work. One of the better examples of this, is the internet itself: You'd think _anyone_ can host _whatever_ they want, and unless it is clearly deeply criminal, you can find somebody to host it for you. In countries with creative laws if you must. Except, that's just not how it works. There are about 8 major CDNs on the planet. If they all decide they want nothing to do with you, it is very hard to host stuff. 8kun and co run into this problem from time to time. At least one of these CDNs is acutely aware of the grave responsibility and blogs about their struggles with it. Do you allow a hate-spewing platform inciting crimes, or do you become judge jury and executioner on speech? Perhaps 8 is enough, but 2 is not enough. So, if the plan is to split up these companies, how many phone platforms are legally required? How much can they work together? Should the US codify into law that it is illegal to buy an iPhone if apple's marketshare exceeds 50% (as iOS is the most popular platform in the US, just naming as an example). Should a country find social networks and start handing out fines if too many within it use the same marketplace? I get the concern, but without more detail, you're engaging in something I find rather problematic: Pointing at an incredibly complicated problem, making a pithy statement about how bad that is, but then not naming a solution to this problem, and insinuating the solution is easy (maybe I'm imagining it, but the drama of your conclusion, whilst perhaps warranted, sure does sound like a "somebody should DO something" kinda claim. It disregards the complex nature of trying to address the issue). So, let me turn it around: Okay. Yes, this is a bit scary, I agree. What do we do about it?
- Exuma 6y agoThese are the same people who say "WeLl WhY dOnT u ReWrItE iT iN C???"
- Qub3d 6y agoWell, this sounds like a monopoly problem, not a free speech problem. If Apple were forced to allow alternative app stores this wouldn't be an issue. Note that they don't have to advertise or host these stores, merely not actively design their products and TOS to prohibit them. But then of course they'd risk losing out on some of that sweet, sweet 30% cut. I see this concern pointing not at stronger protections for speech, but stronger anti-trust enforcement.
- Jochim 6y ago> At this point we are heading towards a complete mitosis of our information channels based on political ideology. This isn't a new thing though? People have always sought out information channels that reinforce their own views. Twitter/FB/Youtube were already infamous for presenting entirely different streams of content to left and right wing audiences. When they were less popular it was Fox vs MSNBC/CNN etc. and before that the newspaper you read. The issue we're seeing now is that people are being attacked by a torrent of information. You're much more likely to be radicalised if every 5 minutes you get a tweet notification about the latest "deep state paedophilia ring"; compared to receiving a monthly newsletter that can be analysed and picked apart in the interim period.
- mesozoic 6y agoNow they have to also build a new hosting company. They will so AWS just created a new competitor and also made every company have to consider a new existential risk of getting kicked off of AWS.