10 ms·
im saying this because it seems like such an obvious point but i havent seen it here- why are people who want the government to be replaced by the "free market"
by the_cat_kittles 6y ago
im saying this because it seems like such an obvious point but i havent seen it here- why are people who want the government to be replaced by the "free market" allowed to be upset that private companies are silencing them? what is the rationale for squaring this circle
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoEven (most) free market conservatives don't believe in the free market when there are too few competitors. This is why you have utility commissions setting electricity rates rather than allowing the free market to do it. We have too few competitors to Facebook for the market to work right.
- dec0dedab0de 6y agoPeople are allowed to be upset for any reason or no reason at all. Actually wait, being upset is not something you need permission for.
- anonymouse008 6y agoWhen the government created some protected classes that told private enterprise how to behave, people began implicitly believing that every person has a right to a protected status.
- imgabe 6y agoPeople are allowed to have any opinions they want, even ones that seem contradictory to you. It's not a free market when a handful of companies can collude to shut out a competitor as they've done to Parler.
- nostromo 6y agoThe opposite of a contradiction is another contradiction. Why are people that believe in regulation of the world's largest corporations suddenly laissez-faire libertarians? If you have opposed the Citizen's United ruling for a decade, don't suddenly act like you care about a corporation's civil liberties, including freedom of association and freedom of expression. The answer is obvious: both sides want power more than they want to stick to their expressed ideals.
- ABeeSea 6y agoI don’t see a contradiction here. The point of classical liberalism is well-regulated capitalism. Economic freedom combined with a rule of law to protect the citizenry. You can want to regulate Twitter and believe they have the freedom to kick whoever they want off their platform without a contradiction.
- dd36 6y agoThis. Regulation would be of harmful misinformation. Arguably, these companies are late in their self-regulation. People were tired of the endless excuses for double standards.
- ironmagma 6y agoIn other words, corporations should be able to do whatever they wish within the rules, but in order for that to happen, there should be rules.
- Reedx 6y agoInversions are happening faster than ever. The red and blue tribes swap their positions in sync at this point.
- DenisM 6y agoHistorical times!
- not2b 6y agoI'm an engineer, not an ideologue, and don't make it a practice of painting myself into a corner just to be consistent. Though I think the big tech companies have too much power, I think the need to avoid having the US government overthrown by a violent coup trumps other considerations. The material they are shutting down includes plans for next weekend to attack both Washington DC and state capitals. Some innocent content could be swept up in this. Once all this calms down, we can address the excessive power of the platforms with antitrust, so there are more of them to choose from.
- legitster 6y agoThis is a bit of a blanket ad hominem - these are not necessarily the same groups of people even if they occasionally share the same message. Even with ultra-conservative circles, there has always been some unpopularity with the party line on economic issues. Free trade, education, etc.
- aplummer 6y agoBy asking the question you’re assuming the point is the have a rational argument on consistent beliefs - but it isn’t. It’s to gaslight and misdirect for political gain.
- unsui 6y agoThat is correct. Any rationalization is post-hoc, done in support of the pre-existing (and pre-determined) goal. As such, because it's entirely post-hoc, this leads to moving the goalposts, and any respective adjustments in rationalizations. The primary question one must ask, in these circumstances: Is my counterpart arguing in good faith? If the signs point to bad faith (e.g., telltale language, gaslighting or similar methods employed, etc), then rational argument is not their currency.
- crooked-v 6y agoThey want the government to replaced by the free market for other people. For them, it's government benefits all the way. The political scientist and author Frank Wilhoit talked about it in his works: > Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: there must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
- brobdingnagians 6y agoErrrhm, all the "protected classes" tend to come from the left wing ideologies. Sure, the right isn't what it used to be with Jeffersonian liberalism and free speech, but that quote could easily be interpreted to be about modern left by simply replacing "Conservatism" with "Liberalism'.
- crooked-v 6y ago'The right' as a term literally comes from supporters of the nobility and the king, the ultimate representation of someone who is protected but not bound by the law.
- rayiner 6y agoThey supported the French king against violent revolutionaries who executed him, imposed arbitrary cultural changes such as abandoning the calendar, and undertook a series of mass executions and purges until they were finally brought under control by Napoleon.
- DenisM 6y agoThe term “right” comes from the delegates seating in the French National Assembly during the revolution. Both the Left (Jacobins) and the Right (Girondists) voted together to behead the King and dispense with all noble priveledges and titles.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- CryptoPunk 6y agoOne can be upset at a corporation and not believe the correct solution is government intervention.
- brobdingnagians 6y agoI think it is because all the big tech companies are eliminating popular dissent concerning the government, which makes many question if the government is in cahoots and using private companies to further public goals of censorship, which would be more difficult to do directly as government. It smells fishy at the very least.
- dd36 6y agoEliminating dissent?!?
- codingslave 6y agoyes.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- dukeofdoom 6y agoSure, watch as Biden berates black leaders. Tells one she can't read. Once you secure power, you don't necessarily like sharing it. Its like splitting the loot between thieves. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3G7n21p0kY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3G7n21p0kY Lenin after securing power, quickly killed off or imprisoned people in his own communist party that he deemed might pose him a threat. Sadly this included most of the well meaning people and idealists. Hitchens narrates a great and chilling example of this: Iraq's 1979 Fascist Coup, Narrated by Christopher Hitchens https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CR1X3zV6X5Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CR1X3zV6X5Y
- dang 6y agoPlease stop using HN for ideological battle. Regardless of which ideology you're battling for, it's not what HN is for, and it destroys what it is for. You've been doing it a lot lately, and we ban that sort of account. I'm not going to ban you right now, because you've also been posting good comments. But if you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and fix this, we'd appreciate it.
- trident5000 6y agoYou need an actual free market which does not exist. Other than that I dont care facebook is moderating its own platform.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tomp 6y agoCartels are not “free market”, they represent a failure of the free market which legislation (i.e. government empowerment by guns) is supposed to solve.
- Grimm1 6y agoHi I'm a free market proponent, I'm totally fine with what's going on here. Edit: My only thought is if people feel these companies are viewed as too critical to be self moderating than maybe these do need anti monopoly action to foster competition in the area. I absolutely do NOT agree with giving them any special statuses which would do the exact opposite of fostering competition.
- trident5000 6y agoMy favorite example of how over the top things have become is that Google has monopolies inside of a monopoly. Youtube has something like 98% of the video streaming market.
- Grimm1 6y agoExactly! And then they make arguments like the content moderation argument going on to depend on them more! I want to depend on them less!
- millstone 6y agoBecause Republicans really have moved to the center on economic issues. The ideological "movement" strain of conservatism no longer has much sway. You no longer hear Republicans talk about Medicare or Social Security privatization, Obamacare repeal, Dodd-Frank repeal, etc because they've moderated on the free market idealism.
- thepangolino 6y ago>why are people who want the government to be replaced by the "free market" allowed to be upset that private companies are silencing them Because there's a clear government-enforced bias. Can you imagine the shitshow if they banned, let's say, black people?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- BHSPitMonkey 6y ago> Because there's a clear government-enforced bias. Obvious lie. The current government is controlled by the group pushing the "stop the steal" propaganda. No reasonable person would believe Trump's own government is compelling Facebook to remove it. > Can you imagine the shitshow if they banned, let's say, black people? Sure... And what, pray tell, does that have to do with removing _posts_ containing calls to violence? How are those two things comparable?
- wolco5 6y agoCurious what would be your take if they banned people based on color. Is it still okay for a private company to set any rules?
- BHSPitMonkey 6y agoWhy do you keep raising hypotheticals which have nothing to do with reality? Once again, TFA is about removing _posts_, not people. Nevertheless, I'll indulge you: While businesses in the USA generally reserve the right to refuse to do business with whomever they please, Federal law (under the Civil Rights Act of 1964) prohibits discrimination in public businesses made on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. Many states also have their own laws further limiting discrimination, though I'm not personally that aware of how these have been tested in regard to online services serving many states/countries. Beyond what's required under law, companies can have whatever policies they wish (but will have to deal with public outrage for implementing policies as disgusting as the one given in your example).
- Tenoke 6y agoI mostly doubt that without the underlying current system companies will act the same way. In this case, I doubt they'd all have as much of a push to ban the same people at the same time example.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago> why are people who want the government to be replaced by the "free market" allowed to be upset that private companies are silencing them? Because there isn't a free market, but a regulated market and there is a widespread perception (on both the left and the right) that the regulations are tilted in favor of the establishment and oligarchs, and against normal people, workers, consumers, and taxpayers. Furthermore when there was protests which were marred by violence in 2020 the platforms were supportive of the protestors and continued to permit them to organize. > what is the rationale for squaring this circle If we want a free market, lets have a free market. If we want regulations, lets let those regulations reflect perspectives from both sides of the aisle. A regulated market for me, and a free market for thee, is not acceptable.
- dd36 6y agoHow are these companies regulated?
- chordalkeyboard 6y agoI don't understand the question. There are statutes that both refer to conduct and delegate power to make rules. Enforcement of these statutes is the responsibility of law enforcement officers.
- dd36 6y agoYou said or implied this was a regulated market.
- chordalkeyboard 6y agothere are regulations and people who enforce them in every country in the world. hence I affirm that this is a regulated market.
- mcavoybn 6y agoIs not the 'free market' when google/facebook have been propped up by US institutions like the CIA, NSA, and Stanford. Google and Facebook are as established as institutions as the US Army or Dept of Homeland Security and should be scrutinized as such. "Free market" is theory, not reality. There are no 100% free markets, nor are there 100% controlled markets. The free market is an ideal that you strive towards in a capitalistic society. Also, the question of "why are they allowed to be upset?" is pretty wild. Who are you to disallow someone getting upset about something?
- spamizbad 6y agoThere’s no ideological consistency to be had here. But I don’t think either side has ideological purity... which is good! But I do find it strange that people seem to think you can attempt a coup of the worlds most powerful country and face virtually no consequence or blowback? As the Emerson quote goes “When you strike at a king, you must kill him.”
- DenisM 6y agoThis is not hard to square. If you believe in free markets as the most efficient mode of production and the most liberal way of life you will be against anything that undermines the freedom of the markets, be it private monopolization or governmental subjugation. The question hotly debated is whether the Cabal of Twitter, FB, Reddit, and the like are large enough to distort the playing field through the sheer gravity of their scale. If you agree that they are you have to agree they have undermined the free market, and markets need to be rescued. In the similar vein - you can argue that the only valid use of violence is to stop unsanctioned use of violence. There is no contradiction in both supporting and opposing use of violence at the same time.
- wellbehaved 6y agoBecause insidious connections between government and big business is called "fascism", and free market people are opposed to that. Those who don't acknowledge/comprehend this issue yet are claiming to defend a "free market" are called "vulgar libertarians": "Vulgar libertarian apologists for capitalism use the term "free market" in an equivocal sense: they seem to have trouble remembering, from one moment to the next, whether they’re defending actually existing capitalism or free market principles. So we get the standard boilerplate article arguing that the rich can’t get rich at the expense of the poor, because "that’s not how the free market works" — implicitly assuming that this is a free market. When prodded, they’ll grudgingly admit that the present system is not a free market, and that it includes a lot of state intervention on behalf of the rich. But as soon as they think they can get away with it, they go right back to defending the wealth of existing corporations on the basis of "free market principles."" -- Kevin Carson
- alexfromapex 6y agoFacebook isn’t really a participant in a free market they’ve been crushing competition for years
- recursive 6y agoCrushing competition is certainly a thing that can happen in a free market.
- colejohnson66 6y agoIsn’t a free market the lack of any government regulation and leaving it up to the “Invisible Hand”? With that definition, monopolies are still “free market”. I guess it depends on your definition of “free market”?
- rayiner 6y agoWe have two coalition parties and it’s not the same people saying the same things: https://ibb.co/mbTycKP https://ibb.co/mbTycKP For one thing, your argument is reductionist. Just because Republicans complain about how CNN chooses to run its newsroom doesn’t mean they want a government takeover of CNN. You can say that something private actors are doing is bad or risky without there being an implication that the government should stop that bad behavior. I mean you can flip this around just as easily? Where are all the Fairness Doctrine liberals? For the other: quite a few Republicans, especially the folks Trump brought in, are economically quite liberal. See: https://ibb.co/mbTycKP https://ibb.co/mbTycKP Trump took changes to social security and Medicare off the table during his campaign. The laissez-faire economic libertarian wing long held the advantage within the coalition, but a bunch of them have become Democrats over the last couple of decades, especially with the rise of Trump.
- tptacek 6y agoI mostly identify the Fairness Doctrine as a liberal canard, not a conservative one.
- jelliclesfarm 6y agoGood point. We will have to wait and see how the rest of the world will judge Twitter, Facebook, AWS et al. I suspect other countries and their citizens wouldn’t want American corporate interference. Free market forces will certainly cut down these corporate influence to size. That’s my prediction. We will have to wait and watch. Time will tell.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- MrRiddle 6y agoThe very fact huge government still exists? Big tech choosing the leaders of said huge government?
- ffggvv 6y agospeaking for myself, i’m not dumb and don’t think it’s illegal for them to stop free speech. but i think we are allowed to be upset and criticize it or call for boycotts and condemn them. that’s our free speech. just like if twitter banned any support of lgbt rights i’m sure the left would cry and not just dismiss it as “corporations aren’t held to the first amendment” imo free speech is a human right and corporations shouldn’t oppress it even if they legally can. just like they shouldn’t discriminate even if they legally could
- BHSPitMonkey 6y agoAnd everyone else can exercise their freedom of speech by calling out the flaws logical inconsistencies in your criticisms of the content moderation. > imo free speech is a human right and corporations shouldn’t oppress it even if they legally can. just like they shouldn’t discriminate even if they legally could Private people and companies are under no obligation to offer their help and services to people who wish to use those services to organize killings or any other crimes. In fact, it's extremely common for businesses to have (and enforce) policies against such use of their products/services, since it's obviously not in their best interest to be viewed by the public as an accessory to crime. The "stop the steal" and similar posts now being removed under the policy are intended for recruiting people to an upcoming armed escalation of last week's riot and invasion at the Capitol (using the false pretense of election fraud by Democrat officials). Their purpose is to capture or kill anyone standing in the way of their goal to overturn the election result, at some point before inauguration. This isn't conjecture; the posts and the commentary surrounding them have been out there for everyone to see. This was also noted by Twitter in their recent announcement on the suspension of the outgoing president's account.
- ffggvv 6y agoyou haven’t pointed out a logical inconsistency. please point out the inconsistency in my statements: 1. Companies are legally free to ban anyone they want. (in fact i side with right of the christian baker refusing to make cakes for gay weddings) 2. Companies shouldn’t ban people for their political opinions or restrict them from expressing them. It’s evil and immoral and horrifying behavior, but not illegal. if they do it, i will call it out as horrific. just like i think the baker shouldn’t discriminate against gay weddings even though they should legally be able to.
- austhrow743 6y agoWhy are people who want to play soccer allowed to be upset when the opponent scored a goal? I don’t know how to answer your question outside of anology. It’s possible to want one thing and not another.
- halocupcake 6y agoMost free marketers don't think the government should enforce all of their moral beliefs. You can be morally against an act of a private company and still believe they have the right to do it. If a company is behaving poorly, and we have a free market, there will probably be alternatives for people to take their business to.
- josephg 6y agoAn ideology is a story / model of the world. And all models are lies (and some models are useful). There's a few ideologies / models going on here. Eg: - A company is like a person, with all the rights of free expression and self governance. From that perspective, twitter and FB are free to have whatever systems of regulation (or be totally arbitrary and capricious). And its up to the market to replace twitter/FB. - A monopolistic social media website is part of the public square. So facebook is more like the US federal government than it is like the burger shop down the road. As such, facebook/twitter should be held to the norms of a government, not the norms of a business. They should allow free speech by the participants in that space, in accordance with the laws of the land. The market should be free to work inside twitter/fb. Both of these stories are internally consistent, and both stories are consistent with the broad ideas of "free speech" and "free markets".
- dcolkitt 6y agoLast night I tried takeout from a new restaurant in town. The food was awful, the food late, the order wrong and the prices way too high. My hoped-for solution isn't for the government to step in and fix the problem. ("There oughta be a law!") It's for the company to be replaced by competitors with new and better products. (Or for the company itself to improve under competitive pressure.)
- Veserv 6y agoBecause the current trend of private companies engaging in censorship is not really "voluntary" private action. A large contingent of the people pushing for censorship will not take no for an answer. If the companies will not "voluntarily" censor their platforms the "right way" then they will use the newly elected government to make them censor their platforms and punish them for their willful efforts to shirk their "duty" in the name of evil. The wave of censorship going on right now is about as voluntary as paying your taxes. That is not to say that censorship is evil on its face. Like taxes, it serves an important purpose especially in private discourse. HN would not be as it is without the tireless efforts at moderation and censorship in the name of pruning out low quality discourse. To disallow all voluntary content discrimination or censorship is to lose direction. However, the key distinction is that the vast majority of the censorship on HN is not backstopped by the threat of government censorship to comply. If the calls for censorship stopped at the private sector and did not threaten the intervention of the government if they did not get what they wanted then I would have absolutely no problem with these private companies silencing individuals in much the same way I have no problem with HN banning people. I suspect somebody will chime in saying that the censorship is now totally voluntary because they have realized just how bad the consequences of their existing policies are with the riots in the capital. To that I say, have you ever seen Zuckerberg talk about free speech [1]? Just look at 4:50 or so. 5:20, is literally a total refutation of the current arguments. At every step along this path he has spoken in favor of free speech and fought the calls for them to censor Facebook. As far as I can tell he is a true believer in the principles of free speech. There is no doubt in my mind that if he truly believed that the government would not intervene that he would not only not censor, he would immediately revert to their policies as of a few years ago with respect to censorship. Really this argument seems to come from people saying that the 1st Amendment only applies to the government, so private censorship is totally fine. True, but are you really following the spirit of the 1st Amendment if you threaten government censorship? If people really thought the government would not censor, then they would assign zero credibility to the threat and ignore it. That people truly consider the threat is an indication that they feel it might actually be acted upon. Also, I am not saying that government censorship is bad in all cases. There are cases where unlimited free speech may not be worth the consequences. However, such rules should always be carefully considered and we should not turn a blind eye to the fact that we are, in fact, using the government to stamp down on speech. It is with great regret that we should make such decisions since we can find no other alternative and we should acknowledge that we have engaged in evil to fight an even greater one. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP--X4GhuP4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nP--X4GhuP4