4 ms·

Yes, but a private company does not have to be consistent in how it applies it standard. One could even argue the standard is consistent but more complex, some

Yes, but a private company does not have to be consistent in how it applies it standard. One could even argue the standard is consistent but more complex, something of a difference between 'ban app that allows bad things' and 'ban app that allows bad things which we don't own', though this gets into the nature of what is consistency, arbitrariness, and hypocriticalness.

vlovich123 6y ago
It's muddled by the fact that the largest tech companies have been known to enter into secret (sometimes anti-trust violating) agreements. For all we know the other companies have an agreement to deplatform apps like Parler in the name of "free speech" but just to make sure that one of the big tech companies is dominant in a given space. I'm not saying I think such an agreement exists in this latest spat of deplatforming. I am suggesting that that's the kind of conspiracy theories such capricious & unprincipled stances take (& yes - they are unprincipled given how much it depends on which political party is dominant when they go to do something). A more benign framing of the conspiracy is that the tech companies desperately want to avoid any trust-busting activities by Congress so when the right is in power they don't do anything about right-wing extremism letting it grow & conveniently when the left is in power they deplatform right wing extremism that has grown, making legislators more anxious to enact any kind of regulation (just like the BS that MPAA played with ratings to avoid getting regulating).
- WindyLakeReturn 6y ago
  >A more benign framing of the conspiracy is that the tech companies desperately want to avoid any trust-busting activities by Congress so when the right is in power they don't do anything about right-wing extremism letting it grow & conveniently when the left is in power they deplatform right wing extremism that has grown, making legislators more anxious to enact any kind of regulation (just like the BS that MPAA played with ratings to avoid getting regulating). If we accept the 'private company' argument as it has been recently presented, then even this falls under it as an acceptable outcome. I am not making an argument saying we should either reject or accept it was presented, only that if we were to accept it, this is a conclusion of the argument.

vlovich123 6y ago

It's muddled by the fact that the largest tech companies have been known to enter into secret (sometimes anti-trust violating) agreements. For all we know the other companies have an agreement to deplatform apps like Parler in the name of "free speech" but just to make sure that one of the big tech companies is dominant in a given space. I'm not saying I think such an agreement exists in this latest spat of deplatforming. I am suggesting that that's the kind of conspiracy theories such capricious & unprincipled stances take (& yes - they are unprincipled given how much it depends on which political party is dominant when they go to do something). A more benign framing of the conspiracy is that the tech companies desperately want to avoid any trust-busting activities by Congress so when the right is in power they don't do anything about right-wing extremism letting it grow & conveniently when the left is in power they deplatform right wing extremism that has grown, making legislators more anxious to enact any kind of regulation (just like the BS that MPAA played with ratings to avoid getting regulating).

WindyLakeReturn 6y ago
>A more benign framing of the conspiracy is that the tech companies desperately want to avoid any trust-busting activities by Congress so when the right is in power they don't do anything about right-wing extremism letting it grow & conveniently when the left is in power they deplatform right wing extremism that has grown, making legislators more anxious to enact any kind of regulation (just like the BS that MPAA played with ratings to avoid getting regulating). If we accept the 'private company' argument as it has been recently presented, then even this falls under it as an acceptable outcome. I am not making an argument saying we should either reject or accept it was presented, only that if we were to accept it, this is a conclusion of the argument.