4 ms·
If alternative chat, payment, etc. are prevented from being created, that is not a "free market" decision. This smells like a politically aligned cartel, with k
by eternalban 6y ago
If alternative chat, payment, etc. are prevented from being created, that is not a "free market" decision. This smells like a politically aligned cartel, with key companies enjoying de facto monopoly positions in effect legislating what is and what is not acceptable.
Right now, we haven't heard from ISPs. The entire suite of services that are controlled by the monopoly FANGs can be recreated, including clouds and cloud-fronts.
If that line is crossed as well then we'll have a modern society entirely dependent on information infrastructure that is controlled by a handful of companies with pedigree rooted firmly in the defense and intelligence sectors. You can call that whatever you please, but it will not be pleasant.
[p.s. I vote Green.]
- freeone3000 6y agoIt will likely be pleasant for the vast majority of people, who have no objectionable views one way or the other. It might even be better, not having to deal with the constant disruption.
- derptron 6y agoYour backbone is missing
- eternalban 6y agoI don't have specific studies to point to ATM but am certain there have been [a few] that have looked at isolating specific aspects of social networks that seem to engender the imo legitimate "constant disruption" that you mention. Point being that keep in mind that simply changing interaction patterns may affect the desired goal of (say) "a civil virtual society". "Objectionable views" is an objectionable notion for many. And "unified messaging" from monopoly information and communication corporations (owned by an astonishingly small subset of humanity) is not a legitimate source of authority for determining what is or is not "objectionable". This is the entire point of political systems: resolving conflicts of views and providing a mechanism for harmonious, fair, and productive societies. Unless the plan is to medicate people, in which case sure, a perfectly homogenous body politic may be in your future.
- aww_dang 6y agoI'm inclined to agree with you. I realize that the term has been abused to the point of meaninglessness, but Fascist economics is defined by corporate monopolies in symbiosis with the state.
- ineedasername 6y agoTo me this just smells like a bunch of companies finally booting people off for violating ToS. Especially given a reasonable argument that President Trump committed a crime, failing to enforce their ToS could open them to their own legal liability for facilitating activity that went against their ToS and is later found to be criminal. Shareholders would sue for securities fraud at the very least.