3 ms·

But when the limited collection of players in the system all act in concert to prevent access to opponents of their preferred political party, isn’t the effect

by grej 6y ago

But when the limited collection of players in the system all act in concert to prevent access to opponents of their preferred political party, isn’t the effect nearly the same? Arguably worse, because there’s no legal recourse. I think that’s the point being made here. Imagine all the airlines were run by Republicans, and they universally prevented anyone who works for Democratic leaning organizations (Eg ActBlue) from flying because some small number of bad actors on their side did some bad things. We would do well to imagine what it would be like to be prevented access with no legal recourse to an an oligopoly of services that cannot practically be bypassed, and ask ourselves what potential for abuse exists when such impactful decisions can be taken without standard legal due process.

nobody9999 6y ago
>But when the limited collection of players in the system all act in concert to prevent access to opponents of their preferred political party, isn’t the effect nearly the same? Arguably worse, because there’s no legal recourse. I think that’s the point being made here. What evidence can you provide to support your claim that various corporations are colluding to block folks? What evidence can you provide that said corporations have a "preferred political party?" You have no such evidence. What's more, whether or not the nebulous set of entities to which you refer (let's have specific names and specific actions). I'd further say that "cloud" (read: someone else's servers) services, a few large social networking sites and a small subset of payment processors (I'm guessing that this is the set of corporations to which you were referring since you don't bother to be specific) do not constitute an "oligopoly." I'd further add that there are hundreds of hosting and co-location providers, dozens of payment processors and a variety of mechanisms to share data, information and messaging. I find your diatribe to be sorely lacking in evidence, reasoned argument and factual information. Finally, your analogy concerning airlines is deeply flawed, as that isn't even close to what's going on. Please provide some evidence for your claims. Otherwise, I can only conclude that you are arguing in bad faith.

by grej 6y ago

nobody9999 6y ago

>But when the limited collection of players in the system all act in concert to prevent access to opponents of their preferred political party, isn’t the effect nearly the same? Arguably worse, because there’s no legal recourse. I think that’s the point being made here. What evidence can you provide to support your claim that various corporations are colluding to block folks? What evidence can you provide that said corporations have a "preferred political party?" You have no such evidence. What's more, whether or not the nebulous set of entities to which you refer (let's have specific names and specific actions). I'd further say that "cloud" (read: someone else's servers) services, a few large social networking sites and a small subset of payment processors (I'm guessing that this is the set of corporations to which you were referring since you don't bother to be specific) do not constitute an "oligopoly." I'd further add that there are hundreds of hosting and co-location providers, dozens of payment processors and a variety of mechanisms to share data, information and messaging. I find your diatribe to be sorely lacking in evidence, reasoned argument and factual information. Finally, your analogy concerning airlines is deeply flawed, as that isn't even close to what's going on. Please provide some evidence for your claims. Otherwise, I can only conclude that you are arguing in bad faith.