4 ms·

That's dodging the question. Let's say they weren't spewing hatred/fascism, and were reporting on critical information that Americans need to know. But AT&T blo

That's dodging the question. Let's say they weren't spewing hatred/fascism, and were reporting on critical information that Americans need to know. But AT&T blocks them. Is the response still going to be "AT&T is private, so it's okay because private companies can do whatever they want"?

Cookingboy 6y ago
>so it's okay because private companies can do whatever they want The point is they can't do whatever they want, just like Google/FB/Amazon actually can't do whatever they want. They can only do it if it's the will of the majority of their customers, employees and shareholders. Jack Dorsey or Jeff Bezos can't make decisions like this unilaterally without the support of all those parties.
- tidepod12 6y ago
  The CEO of CloudFlare famously said that the reason he decided to deplatform Daily Stormer (after previously saying he would not deplatform them) was because one morning he woke up in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the internet. Literally all it took was one CEO waking up on the wrong side of the bed one morning. It seems entirely inaccurate to say that Dorsey or Bezos couldn't make a decision unilaterally like that if they really wanted. I'm not sure about Twitter, but Bezos is the majority shareholder at Amazon and if he really wanted to, could make the decision to ban anyone he wants and nobody would legally be able to stop him, will of the employees/shareholders/public be damned.
  - Cookingboy 6y ago
    I can almost guarantee you he wouldn’t have done it and got away with it if he didn’t know his decision was going to be popular among their employees and shareholders. Of course he made a statement that made himself sound courageous, but it was the easiest decision ever and a PR move lol.
franklampard 6y ago
Yes of course it’s okay. Private companies can terminate services at will. If AT&T terminates customers’ access to websites, customers will go to Verizon etc. If all providers blocked access, they must have a good reason.
- tidepod12 6y ago
  >If AT&T terminates customers’ access to websites, customers will go to Verizon etc. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the ISP market in the US, but the point here is that there are many areas in which customers cannot switch to another ISP. If AT&T were to block websites, those customers would have zero ability to access them. Hence the "some companies are too big and influential" bit.
  - franklampard 6y ago
    I support net neutrality and think internet should be a utility and treats all websites the same. But if a website is willingly violating terms of service defined by the provider (hosting child pornography, spreading racism etc), I support the IPS to block access or whatever. The fact that some users have no alternative is another problem.
  - franklampard 6y ago
    Also I sincerely ask you to check out WTF is being posted on Parker, if you haven’t. For curiosity I registered and took a look, it’s disgusting and I absolutely support it being obliterated. I also think that the real world isn’t that hypothetical and there are a lot of rights and wrongs. You shouldn’t give these racists the same freedom.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Cookingboy 6y ago

>so it's okay because private companies can do whatever they want The point is they can't do whatever they want, just like Google/FB/Amazon actually can't do whatever they want. They can only do it if it's the will of the majority of their customers, employees and shareholders. Jack Dorsey or Jeff Bezos can't make decisions like this unilaterally without the support of all those parties.

tidepod12 6y ago
The CEO of CloudFlare famously said that the reason he decided to deplatform Daily Stormer (after previously saying he would not deplatform them) was because one morning he woke up in a bad mood and decided to kick them off the internet. Literally all it took was one CEO waking up on the wrong side of the bed one morning. It seems entirely inaccurate to say that Dorsey or Bezos couldn't make a decision unilaterally like that if they really wanted. I'm not sure about Twitter, but Bezos is the majority shareholder at Amazon and if he really wanted to, could make the decision to ban anyone he wants and nobody would legally be able to stop him, will of the employees/shareholders/public be damned.
- Cookingboy 6y ago
  I can almost guarantee you he wouldn’t have done it and got away with it if he didn’t know his decision was going to be popular among their employees and shareholders. Of course he made a statement that made himself sound courageous, but it was the easiest decision ever and a PR move lol.

franklampard 6y ago

Yes of course it’s okay. Private companies can terminate services at will. If AT&T terminates customers’ access to websites, customers will go to Verizon etc. If all providers blocked access, they must have a good reason.

tidepod12 6y ago
>If AT&T terminates customers’ access to websites, customers will go to Verizon etc. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the ISP market in the US, but the point here is that there are many areas in which customers cannot switch to another ISP. If AT&T were to block websites, those customers would have zero ability to access them. Hence the "some companies are too big and influential" bit.
- franklampard 6y ago
  I support net neutrality and think internet should be a utility and treats all websites the same. But if a website is willingly violating terms of service defined by the provider (hosting child pornography, spreading racism etc), I support the IPS to block access or whatever. The fact that some users have no alternative is another problem.
- franklampard 6y ago
  Also I sincerely ask you to check out WTF is being posted on Parker, if you haven’t. For curiosity I registered and took a look, it’s disgusting and I absolutely support it being obliterated. I also think that the real world isn’t that hypothetical and there are a lot of rights and wrongs. You shouldn’t give these racists the same freedom.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]