5 ms·

It's funny how the same group of people who say things like "government should get out of the way of business" cry foul as soon as those unregulated businesses

by blt 6y ago

It's funny how the same group of people who say things like "government should get out of the way of business" cry foul as soon as those unregulated businesses do something they don't like.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
nine_k 6y ago
Do they ask for the state to intervene? Then it is inconsistent. If they are just unhappy with the way their hosting providers behaved, and what arguments they used to explain their eviction, then, well, it's understandable.
- kriops 6y ago
  If they are asking the state to enforce any contracts/agreements then that is very much consistent with a laissez-faire stance. The 'Freedom of Speech'-line of reasoning is invalid in a laissez-faire context, though it _is_ however an argument I'd expect to bee seen as valid by several large crowds between the political extremes.
  - nine_k 6y ago
    I agree about the freedom of contract, and assume that the terms of service likely included the right of the provider to cancel the service and terminate the contract at any time, without giving any reasons. The problem I see that everyone sees e.g. Parler as so toxic that they expect their reputation to increase, on average, for kicking them away. It's the low tolerance to dissent and the high social opinion pressure what is troubling, not the action.
teakettle007 6y ago
Section 230 of the CDA is the government getting in the way of business; granting these businesses privileged immunity such that they can have all the advantages of operating as a common carrier, while actually operating as a publisher. Take away that government-giveaway, and the problem is solved. The CDA was always a bad idea.
- _jal 6y ago
  This is utter nonsense, demonstrating that you don't even know what S230 does. For anyone who may be confused, please see: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20201030/09165945621/your-problem-is-not-with-section-230-1st-amendment.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20201030/09165945621/your-...
  - teakettle007 6y ago
    Huh? I’m not remotely confused, but it would seem that you are. Without section 230, companies can carry whatever content they like, but they’re legally liable for it. A common carrier is not responsible for the content they carry, as long as they carry it for customers without discrimination. In exchange for serving the public good, common carriers are granted the privilege of immunity. Section 230, however, eliminates that exchange — a government grant of privileged immunity, in exchange for nothing — while also having editorial control over what they publish.
- minhazm 6y ago
  Take away section 230 and now companies can be sued for what they're hosting, and so they will more aggressively start banning people. Also you can't realistically remove section 230, the risk is too high. Say a rogue user uploads an illegal image to your site, you've now hosted this illegal image which is a felony. Even if you delete it quickly, you've already committed the crime by hosting it in the first place. It's completely impractical to run any internet service without this protection.
  - teakettle007 6y ago
    > Take away section 230 and now companies can be sued for what they're hosting, and so they will more aggressively start banning people. Not if they operate as a common carrier —- just like how the phone company cannot be sued for carrying calls.
    - andrewprock 6y ago
      In case anyone is not familiar of what it means to regulate communication as a common carrier, this is the relevant wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 It's worth noting that in 2015, ISPs were granted status as common carriers, but that was removed in 2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier#Telecommunications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier#Telecommunicati...
paddim8 6y ago
I just find it hilarious that these are the same people that advocate for an unregulated free market.
- balozi 6y ago
  Nuance. An argument in favor of free markets in housing does not negate the need for tenant rights.
  - f430 6y ago
    The type that parent is referring to are people who believe that greed will fix everything even tenant rights in your scenario. They are fine with people getting burned, scammed, defrauded all in the name of a kamikaze style capitalism. We can't live it to billionaires and their profit-orientated companies to fix things. Somebody needs to copy paste the Mark Twain quote.
  - mr_toad 6y ago
    Nuance. AWS is not a house.

by blt 6y ago

It's funny how the same group of people who say things like "government should get out of the way of business" cry foul as soon as those unregulated businesses do something they don't like.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

nine_k 6y ago

Do they ask for the state to intervene? Then it is inconsistent. If they are just unhappy with the way their hosting providers behaved, and what arguments they used to explain their eviction, then, well, it's understandable.

kriops 6y ago
If they are asking the state to enforce any contracts/agreements then that is very much consistent with a laissez-faire stance. The 'Freedom of Speech'-line of reasoning is invalid in a laissez-faire context, though it _is_ however an argument I'd expect to bee seen as valid by several large crowds between the political extremes.
- nine_k 6y ago
  I agree about the freedom of contract, and assume that the terms of service likely included the right of the provider to cancel the service and terminate the contract at any time, without giving any reasons. The problem I see that everyone sees e.g. Parler as so toxic that they expect their reputation to increase, on average, for kicking them away. It's the low tolerance to dissent and the high social opinion pressure what is troubling, not the action.

teakettle007 6y ago

Section 230 of the CDA is the government getting in the way of business; granting these businesses privileged immunity such that they can have all the advantages of operating as a common carrier, while actually operating as a publisher. Take away that government-giveaway, and the problem is solved. The CDA was always a bad idea.

_jal 6y ago
This is utter nonsense, demonstrating that you don't even know what S230 does. For anyone who may be confused, please see: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20201030/09165945621/your-problem-is-not-with-section-230-1st-amendment.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20201030/09165945621/your-...
- teakettle007 6y ago
  Huh? I’m not remotely confused, but it would seem that you are. Without section 230, companies can carry whatever content they like, but they’re legally liable for it. A common carrier is not responsible for the content they carry, as long as they carry it for customers without discrimination. In exchange for serving the public good, common carriers are granted the privilege of immunity. Section 230, however, eliminates that exchange — a government grant of privileged immunity, in exchange for nothing — while also having editorial control over what they publish.
minhazm 6y ago
Take away section 230 and now companies can be sued for what they're hosting, and so they will more aggressively start banning people. Also you can't realistically remove section 230, the risk is too high. Say a rogue user uploads an illegal image to your site, you've now hosted this illegal image which is a felony. Even if you delete it quickly, you've already committed the crime by hosting it in the first place. It's completely impractical to run any internet service without this protection.
- teakettle007 6y ago
  > Take away section 230 and now companies can be sued for what they're hosting, and so they will more aggressively start banning people. Not if they operate as a common carrier —- just like how the phone company cannot be sued for carrying calls.
  - andrewprock 6y ago
    In case anyone is not familiar of what it means to regulate communication as a common carrier, this is the relevant wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications_Act_of_1934 It's worth noting that in 2015, ISPs were granted status as common carriers, but that was removed in 2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier#Telecommunications https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_carrier#Telecommunicati...

paddim8 6y ago

I just find it hilarious that these are the same people that advocate for an unregulated free market.

balozi 6y ago
Nuance. An argument in favor of free markets in housing does not negate the need for tenant rights.
- f430 6y ago
  The type that parent is referring to are people who believe that greed will fix everything even tenant rights in your scenario. They are fine with people getting burned, scammed, defrauded all in the name of a kamikaze style capitalism. We can't live it to billionaires and their profit-orientated companies to fix things. Somebody needs to copy paste the Mark Twain quote.
- mr_toad 6y ago
  Nuance. AWS is not a house.