3 ms·

> Silicon Valley wants to use its power to make it harder for people with those views to meet, organize and share their views? Crack on. No, they should not be

by qez 6y ago

> Silicon Valley wants to use its power to make it harder for people with those views to meet, organize and share their views? Crack on. No, they should not be doing that. It shouldn't even be legal for Silicon Valley to do that. I don't care that you describe the people being censored as having negative traits, that is your political opinion.

pc86 6y ago
Why shouldn't it be legal? What right do you have to say to AWS "you have to host my website?" I am a free speech absolutist but that doesn't mean you have a right to force others to endorse, host, or amplify your speech. Just that you shouldn't go to jail for it.
- neilwilson 6y ago
  That's fine when there are alternatives. The fact that Parler isn't back online shows that there is an oligopoly in place. The point of the first amendment in the first place was to stop those with overwhelming political power preventing those they didn't like from speaking. What this entire episode has shown is that capitalism's ability to offer alternatives is being stymied by network effects. In the USA that used to bring out the Anti-Trust big stick. Parler can be shut down when it has been shown to have breached legislation passed by the country and has been found guilty of that in a court of law after due process. It's not just free speech that is at issue here. It is innocent until proven guilty and due process. All of which are Human Rights issues. Or at least used to be.
  - Closi 6y ago
    > It's not just free speech that is at issue here. It is innocent until proven guilty and due process. All of which are Human Rights issues. Or at least used to be. Due process is inefficient and slow compared to letting unelected mega-corps determine what other businesses can exist and what speech can and can't be heard. Imagine how awful a system with a 'burden-of-proof' and 'oversight' would be compared to just trusting the invisible hand of the market and profit motives determine the optimum course of action! Adam Smith proved that it would all work out fine anyway - there was a graph with some curves that proved it I think. Now if only we had a way to merge all these mega-companies into one, bigger super-mega-corp. Imagine how much better that would be! Hopefully over time with market consolidation we can achieve anything.
    - neilwilson 6y ago
      And we could call this triumph of outsourcing "Big Brother". All very fraternal, and we know how much BigTech loves fraternities.
  - pc86 6y ago
    AWS has alternatives in 1) Azure; 2) GCP; 3) Any number of smaller VPS providers; 4) self-hosted infrastructure; 5) co-location, which sometimes (often?) has different requirements compared to virtualization re: content. > The fact that Parler isn't back online shows that there is an oligopoly in place. It shows that they have mediocre-at-best technical talent in place, which isn't all that surprising given the content and target market. > Parler can be shut down when it has been shown to have breached legislation passed by the country and has been found guilty of that in a court of law after due process. This may be what you want, but it's not reality so I wouldn't frame it as a definitive fact like this. > It's not just free speech that is at issue here. It's not a free speech issue at all. Free speech means you can't be jailed or persecuted by the government for your speech. > It is innocent until proven guilty and due process. You're conflating a misunderstanding of Constitutional rights with criminal law. Due process is 100% irrelevant.
    - qez 6y ago
      > AWS has alternatives Yes, but we are seeing collusion > It's not a free speech issue at all Yes, it is. > Free speech means you can't be jailed or persecuted by the government for your speech. This is incorrect. You are confusing free speech with the 1st amendment. The first amendment is the law that says the government cannot suppress your free speech. Free speech is not synonymous with that. > Due process is 100% irrelevant It is relevant to the extent that tech companies are operating as quasi governmental entities.
- leshow 6y ago
  I think the argument is that the fact these services represent a monopoly that means they shouldn't have absolute power on who gets to use their platform.

by qez 6y ago

pc86 6y ago

Why shouldn't it be legal? What right do you have to say to AWS "you have to host my website?" I am a free speech absolutist but that doesn't mean you have a right to force others to endorse, host, or amplify your speech. Just that you shouldn't go to jail for it.

neilwilson 6y ago
That's fine when there are alternatives. The fact that Parler isn't back online shows that there is an oligopoly in place. The point of the first amendment in the first place was to stop those with overwhelming political power preventing those they didn't like from speaking. What this entire episode has shown is that capitalism's ability to offer alternatives is being stymied by network effects. In the USA that used to bring out the Anti-Trust big stick. Parler can be shut down when it has been shown to have breached legislation passed by the country and has been found guilty of that in a court of law after due process. It's not just free speech that is at issue here. It is innocent until proven guilty and due process. All of which are Human Rights issues. Or at least used to be.
- Closi 6y ago
  > It's not just free speech that is at issue here. It is innocent until proven guilty and due process. All of which are Human Rights issues. Or at least used to be. Due process is inefficient and slow compared to letting unelected mega-corps determine what other businesses can exist and what speech can and can't be heard. Imagine how awful a system with a 'burden-of-proof' and 'oversight' would be compared to just trusting the invisible hand of the market and profit motives determine the optimum course of action! Adam Smith proved that it would all work out fine anyway - there was a graph with some curves that proved it I think. Now if only we had a way to merge all these mega-companies into one, bigger super-mega-corp. Imagine how much better that would be! Hopefully over time with market consolidation we can achieve anything.
  - neilwilson 6y ago
    And we could call this triumph of outsourcing "Big Brother". All very fraternal, and we know how much BigTech loves fraternities.
- pc86 6y ago
  AWS has alternatives in 1) Azure; 2) GCP; 3) Any number of smaller VPS providers; 4) self-hosted infrastructure; 5) co-location, which sometimes (often?) has different requirements compared to virtualization re: content. > The fact that Parler isn't back online shows that there is an oligopoly in place. It shows that they have mediocre-at-best technical talent in place, which isn't all that surprising given the content and target market. > Parler can be shut down when it has been shown to have breached legislation passed by the country and has been found guilty of that in a court of law after due process. This may be what you want, but it's not reality so I wouldn't frame it as a definitive fact like this. > It's not just free speech that is at issue here. It's not a free speech issue at all. Free speech means you can't be jailed or persecuted by the government for your speech. > It is innocent until proven guilty and due process. You're conflating a misunderstanding of Constitutional rights with criminal law. Due process is 100% irrelevant.
  - qez 6y ago
    > AWS has alternatives Yes, but we are seeing collusion > It's not a free speech issue at all Yes, it is. > Free speech means you can't be jailed or persecuted by the government for your speech. This is incorrect. You are confusing free speech with the 1st amendment. The first amendment is the law that says the government cannot suppress your free speech. Free speech is not synonymous with that. > Due process is 100% irrelevant It is relevant to the extent that tech companies are operating as quasi governmental entities.
leshow 6y ago
I think the argument is that the fact these services represent a monopoly that means they shouldn't have absolute power on who gets to use their platform.