3 ms·

I'm usually don't have a strong opinion but in this case. Consider the following hypothetical: Suppose the Big Tech companies are far-right instead of left. In

I'm usually don't have a strong opinion but in this case. Consider the following hypothetical: Suppose the Big Tech companies are far-right instead of left. Instead of banning racism and insurrection, they are banning people calling for higher taxes on the wealthy and UBI. Twitter censors posts by supporters and politicians like Bernie Sanders. In response, Sanders supporters create an alternate social network like a liberal Parler, but it gets removed from the App Store and deactivated by AWS. In this scenario people wouldn't be saying "freedom of speech is freedom from compelled speech; you can say what you want but you just need to create your own platform / internet; etc." There would be legislation drafted aimed at breaking up or regulating these near-monopolistic private companies. The argument that private companies can censor what they want works with small businesses and competitive environments, but not when private companies essentially control the #1 means of communication. To be clear, I don't believe that violent insurrectionists should get a platform. I don't believe that racists and bigots should get a platform. I don't even support this bill because it's way too broad. But the amount of people supporting this argument - that private companies with near-monopolies on a means of communication, can control and censor said communication however they want - is crazy.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Suppose the Big Tech companies are far-right instead of left. Wait, when did corporate capitalism become a left-wing position? What you really mean is "supposed the Big Tech companies became far-right instead of centrist neoliberal capitalists". > In this scenario people wouldn’t be saying “freedom of speech is freedom from compelled speech; you can say what you want but you just need to create your own platform / internet; etc.” T Yeah, just projecting a story of how people would act in a counterfactual in order to base an argument on it is problematic because its obviously quite easy to just assert whatever behavior would best suit the conclusion you want to draw. One could equally easily assume that left-wing opponents of the action you suggest would, instead of focussing on state regulation (presumably, if industry was that much more tilted against the left than it is now, through the influence of industrial money the government would be even more tilted against the left than it is now, which would make the government unhelpful in any case), the left would instead organize outside corporate communication channels (as it has in the past) for boycotts, demonstrations, and mobilization for both the interests that were being targeted and against the firms that were trying to block them. Of course, in that case, the argument you are trying to build on top of your story about how the left would behave falls apart.
- armchairhacker 6y ago
  > What you really mean is "supposed the Big Tech companies became far-right instead of centrist neoliberal capitalists". This is right. I should've said something like "what if they censored progressive reform instead of violence and hatred". > One could equally easily assume ... the left would instead organize outside corporate communication channels (as it has in the past) for boycotts, demonstrations, and mobilization Yes, but one could also assume the extremists are going to do the same thing to stage another insurrection. And, under the argument that they still have freedom of speech, there is nothing we could do. The point is that people are supporting the current, reasonable policy (censoring hate speech and calls for violence) with the wrong justification (private companies that control communication can do whatever they want). This particularly becomes a problem when the companies decide to use their censorship for profit at the expense of indie studios (which has happened), and said studios don't have good alternatives.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Suppose the Big Tech companies are far-right instead of left. Wait, when did corporate capitalism become a left-wing position? What you really mean is "supposed the Big Tech companies became far-right instead of centrist neoliberal capitalists". > In this scenario people wouldn’t be saying “freedom of speech is freedom from compelled speech; you can say what you want but you just need to create your own platform / internet; etc.” T Yeah, just projecting a story of how people would act in a counterfactual in order to base an argument on it is problematic because its obviously quite easy to just assert whatever behavior would best suit the conclusion you want to draw. One could equally easily assume that left-wing opponents of the action you suggest would, instead of focussing on state regulation (presumably, if industry was that much more tilted against the left than it is now, through the influence of industrial money the government would be even more tilted against the left than it is now, which would make the government unhelpful in any case), the left would instead organize outside corporate communication channels (as it has in the past) for boycotts, demonstrations, and mobilization for both the interests that were being targeted and against the firms that were trying to block them. Of course, in that case, the argument you are trying to build on top of your story about how the left would behave falls apart.

armchairhacker 6y ago
> What you really mean is "supposed the Big Tech companies became far-right instead of centrist neoliberal capitalists". This is right. I should've said something like "what if they censored progressive reform instead of violence and hatred". > One could equally easily assume ... the left would instead organize outside corporate communication channels (as it has in the past) for boycotts, demonstrations, and mobilization Yes, but one could also assume the extremists are going to do the same thing to stage another insurrection. And, under the argument that they still have freedom of speech, there is nothing we could do. The point is that people are supporting the current, reasonable policy (censoring hate speech and calls for violence) with the wrong justification (private companies that control communication can do whatever they want). This particularly becomes a problem when the companies decide to use their censorship for profit at the expense of indie studios (which has happened), and said studios don't have good alternatives.