6 ms·

People have a right to any platform they are able to create. The problem with centralized social media is that it is a monopoly with legal protections and is ab

People have a right to any platform they are able to create. The problem with centralized social media is that it is a monopoly with legal protections and is able to essentially exclude people from the de facto town square.

jrs235 6y ago
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to force others to listen or post your recorded message. Everyone is free to speak out. Everyone is free to write letters. Yes it sucks your audience is limited but you are correct, people have a right to any platform they are able to create. Also monopolies and oligopolies are what happens in unregulated capitalism. If frustrates me that the many of folks today who take issue with the tech giants have been pro deregulation, pro capitalism, and screaming about how afraid we should be because a boring sleepy vanilla POTUS is going to usher in socialism and communism... WTF is your solution then? Everyone can point out problems and evoke FUD.
- hiram112 6y ago
  > people have a right to any platform they are able to create. This argument is becoming increasingly disingenuous based on actions of just the last few days. Didn’t Parler go ahead and do exactly what you recommended? * cut off from Google Play and Apple Store. Most people don’t even have personal computers anymore, so their phone / IPad is the only way to access the platforms. * Apple doesn’t allow side loading. Google makes it less and less viable and so many necessary APIs are moved out of the open Android Sdk and into the gated Play APIs. * As if to demonstrate the absolute futility of your suggestion, AWS cut off Parler‘s servers. * Any site need some sort of financial API. How many times have we seen companies like Stripe, GoFundMe, Visa and MasterCard, and even large banks give in to the mob. * every other required piece of the puzzle will do the same: DNS providers, CDNs, and even the large backbone ISPs. Sorry, bigot, but we’ve decided we won’t be routing your traffic through our exchange. * Even power companies are privatized in the US. Sorry, just go make your own power grid, right?
  - alistairSH 6y ago
    This argument is becoming increasingly disingenuous based on actions of just the last few days. Didn’t Parler go ahead and do exactly what you recommended? Parler only went halfway there. They created a app/website. But, that's not an entire platform (as we see today). An entire platform in this context includes servers, fiber optic networks, routers, etc. If Parler wants to speak on the scale they envision, they can build their own infrastructure to do so. Yes, that's expensive, but it's also no different than the pre-internet era, where similar speech would be relegated to self-published fliers, because no newspaper or TV would carry the message.
    - bluescrn 6y ago
      'Ok, you've obtained a printing press and related supplies and are printing your own newspapers. But to distribute them, you first need to build your own road network, you're banned from our roads. And you'll need a power station, as you're about to get cut off the grid!' Social media created a new type of platform. But people are forgetting that it also created a new and more vicious type of activism, too.
      - alistairSH 6y ago
        Roads and power grid are utilities managed by the government. If we want Twitter to be managed the same, we are free to do so. That may be the ultimate solution, but I'm not yet convinced.
        bluescrn 6y ago
        It's more about Internet infrastructure itself. Maybe you could compare AWS to a haulage company, the equivalent of trucks distributing the newspapers. If Parler were to buy their own 'trucks' (servers), would they be able to drive freely on the 'roads' of the Internet? Or would nobody be willing to provide them a connection?
        throwaway316943 6y ago
        The solution isn’t to nationalize social media, it’s to legislate that they be interoperable with other platforms. If you have an account on Facebook and Twitter you should be able to publish and read from both via an API. They can still ban people but you should be able to take your data seamlessly to another competing platform that is interoperable with a number of clients both official and independent. Utilities work because they follow common protocols, e.g. utility companies don’t require you to rewire your house and use a different voltage.
- Grustaf 6y ago
  > Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to force others to listen or post your recorded message. I don't think anyone, from Trump to Alex Jones, is asking to be able to force people to follow them on Twitter or youtube. But they should have a right to be there, and talk to people that have chosen to follow them, that's quite a different thing.
alistairSH 6y ago
This has been the balancing act for centuries (since the printing press). The scale/speed has changed over time, but newspapers and TV stations can and have "de-platformed" people in the past. At the end of the day, I'm a strong supporter of free speech. But, it's up to the speaker to provide their own platform. If all they can manage is a literal soapbox in the town square, so be it. There is no fundamental right for a person's speech to be easily broadcast, nor is there a right for that speech to be heard or acknowledged. As long as Twitter, Facebook, the NYT, and the WSJ are private entities, they also have their own rights. If we really want to prevent de-platforming, the solution seems to be categorizing media companies as some sort of utility. But, I don't really know what they would look like.

jrs235 6y ago

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to force others to listen or post your recorded message. Everyone is free to speak out. Everyone is free to write letters. Yes it sucks your audience is limited but you are correct, people have a right to any platform they are able to create. Also monopolies and oligopolies are what happens in unregulated capitalism. If frustrates me that the many of folks today who take issue with the tech giants have been pro deregulation, pro capitalism, and screaming about how afraid we should be because a boring sleepy vanilla POTUS is going to usher in socialism and communism... WTF is your solution then? Everyone can point out problems and evoke FUD.

hiram112 6y ago
> people have a right to any platform they are able to create. This argument is becoming increasingly disingenuous based on actions of just the last few days. Didn’t Parler go ahead and do exactly what you recommended? * cut off from Google Play and Apple Store. Most people don’t even have personal computers anymore, so their phone / IPad is the only way to access the platforms. * Apple doesn’t allow side loading. Google makes it less and less viable and so many necessary APIs are moved out of the open Android Sdk and into the gated Play APIs. * As if to demonstrate the absolute futility of your suggestion, AWS cut off Parler‘s servers. * Any site need some sort of financial API. How many times have we seen companies like Stripe, GoFundMe, Visa and MasterCard, and even large banks give in to the mob. * every other required piece of the puzzle will do the same: DNS providers, CDNs, and even the large backbone ISPs. Sorry, bigot, but we’ve decided we won’t be routing your traffic through our exchange. * Even power companies are privatized in the US. Sorry, just go make your own power grid, right?
- alistairSH 6y ago
  This argument is becoming increasingly disingenuous based on actions of just the last few days. Didn’t Parler go ahead and do exactly what you recommended? Parler only went halfway there. They created a app/website. But, that's not an entire platform (as we see today). An entire platform in this context includes servers, fiber optic networks, routers, etc. If Parler wants to speak on the scale they envision, they can build their own infrastructure to do so. Yes, that's expensive, but it's also no different than the pre-internet era, where similar speech would be relegated to self-published fliers, because no newspaper or TV would carry the message.
  - bluescrn 6y ago
    'Ok, you've obtained a printing press and related supplies and are printing your own newspapers. But to distribute them, you first need to build your own road network, you're banned from our roads. And you'll need a power station, as you're about to get cut off the grid!' Social media created a new type of platform. But people are forgetting that it also created a new and more vicious type of activism, too.
    - alistairSH 6y ago
      Roads and power grid are utilities managed by the government. If we want Twitter to be managed the same, we are free to do so. That may be the ultimate solution, but I'm not yet convinced.
      - bluescrn 6y ago
        It's more about Internet infrastructure itself. Maybe you could compare AWS to a haulage company, the equivalent of trucks distributing the newspapers. If Parler were to buy their own 'trucks' (servers), would they be able to drive freely on the 'roads' of the Internet? Or would nobody be willing to provide them a connection?
      - throwaway316943 6y ago
        The solution isn’t to nationalize social media, it’s to legislate that they be interoperable with other platforms. If you have an account on Facebook and Twitter you should be able to publish and read from both via an API. They can still ban people but you should be able to take your data seamlessly to another competing platform that is interoperable with a number of clients both official and independent. Utilities work because they follow common protocols, e.g. utility companies don’t require you to rewire your house and use a different voltage.
Grustaf 6y ago
> Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to force others to listen or post your recorded message. I don't think anyone, from Trump to Alex Jones, is asking to be able to force people to follow them on Twitter or youtube. But they should have a right to be there, and talk to people that have chosen to follow them, that's quite a different thing.

alistairSH 6y ago

This has been the balancing act for centuries (since the printing press). The scale/speed has changed over time, but newspapers and TV stations can and have "de-platformed" people in the past. At the end of the day, I'm a strong supporter of free speech. But, it's up to the speaker to provide their own platform. If all they can manage is a literal soapbox in the town square, so be it. There is no fundamental right for a person's speech to be easily broadcast, nor is there a right for that speech to be heard or acknowledged. As long as Twitter, Facebook, the NYT, and the WSJ are private entities, they also have their own rights. If we really want to prevent de-platforming, the solution seems to be categorizing media companies as some sort of utility. But, I don't really know what they would look like.