3 ms·

When they stopped filming people streaking on sports fields it stopped happening. When school shooters get tons of media coverage school shootings go up. Same w

by pfisch 6y ago

When they stopped filming people streaking on sports fields it stopped happening. When school shooters get tons of media coverage school shootings go up. Same with suicides. People don't like to think that censorship works, but the truth is that censorship does work a lot of the time.

LatteLazy 6y ago
I can see some argument for that. But It still makes no sense to ban parler. And you now need to filter the content of all media to prevent those people getting publicity elsewhere. So is that the plan? Keep parler but install censors there AND in every website mod office, newspaper, TV station and radio studio? That's a lot of work. When we could just put FBI agents on parler and have them prevent crimes with conspiracy charges. And you still can't actually justify a ban on parler.
- cygx 6y ago
  Note that the alternative would be forcing private companies to do business with a party they do not want to do business with. That has its own set of issues.
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    You're right and it does. But we do already do that with (other) utilities: the power company can't cut off the supply to the local KKK office as long as they're operating legally and they pay their bills. This is the price we pay for an open society. Freedom means freedom for morons as well as for us. I wish there were an easier answer, but I wouldn't even trust myself with the power to decide who is allowed to speak and who isn't, so I won't trust Amazon Web Services PR department. So no one gets the job and sometimes that stinks.
    - cygx 6y ago
      So are you arguing for declaring cloud computing platforms public utilities?
      - LatteLazy 6y ago
        I guess I'm arguing for 2 things: * declaring pretty much any company (including cloud computing platforms and maybe the Apple app store and few others) a utility IF they have this sort of market breaking power. * creating a lower tier than full "utility" status where a company does not have market breaking power but where they do have excess power. I'm not convinced AWS has market breaking power because parler could get another provider. But getting and moving to another provider on ~24h notice is pretty market breaking. So maybe AWS (and other sub-utilities or whatever you want to call them) can cut you off BUT they need to give you 28 days notice and arrange for transfer of data and continuity of service. To me this is like if you're out of lease, your landlord still has to give you notice, they can't just turn up at 9am and tell you you need to be out by 5. I don't think those are too onerous as requirements. And I do think that many companies (Google for search and ads, Visa/Mastercard) have gotten just as "infrastructural" as power/water/phone companies were back when the original push to utility status occurred. There should be a push to balance that. That's power that reaches across our society without any check or balance or democratic input. In fairness, Google etc have been pretty good at NOT abusing that power. But why wait for an abuse. Ironically that's what parlar should teach us: be a bit more proactive about your problems, don't wait for a seige of the senate chamber. What do you think? Have I gone off the deep end? :) Fyi, this isn't just about parlar and controversial content etc. YouTube bans educational channels pretty much at random and no one does anything about it until there is a twitter storm. That's not right. Apple thinks it has a right to ban tumblr because nipples. Also, wrong imho. If Apple want be the main app provider (via app store for non-jail-broken users), they need to play fair not favourites.
- artificialLimbs 6y ago
  You could hold individuals responsible for crimes when they are reported or found.

by pfisch 6y ago

LatteLazy 6y ago

I can see some argument for that. But It still makes no sense to ban parler. And you now need to filter the content of all media to prevent those people getting publicity elsewhere. So is that the plan? Keep parler but install censors there AND in every website mod office, newspaper, TV station and radio studio? That's a lot of work. When we could just put FBI agents on parler and have them prevent crimes with conspiracy charges. And you still can't actually justify a ban on parler.

cygx 6y ago
Note that the alternative would be forcing private companies to do business with a party they do not want to do business with. That has its own set of issues.
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  You're right and it does. But we do already do that with (other) utilities: the power company can't cut off the supply to the local KKK office as long as they're operating legally and they pay their bills. This is the price we pay for an open society. Freedom means freedom for morons as well as for us. I wish there were an easier answer, but I wouldn't even trust myself with the power to decide who is allowed to speak and who isn't, so I won't trust Amazon Web Services PR department. So no one gets the job and sometimes that stinks.
  - cygx 6y ago
    So are you arguing for declaring cloud computing platforms public utilities?
    - LatteLazy 6y ago
      I guess I'm arguing for 2 things: * declaring pretty much any company (including cloud computing platforms and maybe the Apple app store and few others) a utility IF they have this sort of market breaking power. * creating a lower tier than full "utility" status where a company does not have market breaking power but where they do have excess power. I'm not convinced AWS has market breaking power because parler could get another provider. But getting and moving to another provider on ~24h notice is pretty market breaking. So maybe AWS (and other sub-utilities or whatever you want to call them) can cut you off BUT they need to give you 28 days notice and arrange for transfer of data and continuity of service. To me this is like if you're out of lease, your landlord still has to give you notice, they can't just turn up at 9am and tell you you need to be out by 5. I don't think those are too onerous as requirements. And I do think that many companies (Google for search and ads, Visa/Mastercard) have gotten just as "infrastructural" as power/water/phone companies were back when the original push to utility status occurred. There should be a push to balance that. That's power that reaches across our society without any check or balance or democratic input. In fairness, Google etc have been pretty good at NOT abusing that power. But why wait for an abuse. Ironically that's what parlar should teach us: be a bit more proactive about your problems, don't wait for a seige of the senate chamber. What do you think? Have I gone off the deep end? :) Fyi, this isn't just about parlar and controversial content etc. YouTube bans educational channels pretty much at random and no one does anything about it until there is a twitter storm. That's not right. Apple thinks it has a right to ban tumblr because nipples. Also, wrong imho. If Apple want be the main app provider (via app store for non-jail-broken users), they need to play fair not favourites.
artificialLimbs 6y ago
You could hold individuals responsible for crimes when they are reported or found.