3 ms·

That's ok, I'm just asking the question in general. It's not that Amazon just decided to do it out of nowhere, people demanded it. So shouldn't Twitter be shut

by ttt0 6y ago

That's ok, I'm just asking the question in general. It's not that Amazon just decided to do it out of nowhere, people demanded it. So shouldn't Twitter be shut down by their cloud service provider, DDOS protection provider, domain registrar, payment processor or whatever service they do business with? Because I don't see anyone arguing for that. Just as an aside, did they really tried to argue in court that AWS should suspend Twitter too despite not having anything to do with them? Jesus Christ, the incompetence in some of these people.

mumblemumble 6y ago
The problem with JAQing off is that, even when it's done after taking the time to fully understand the situation, that generally isn't evident. So it typically inserts vastly more noise than signal into the discussion.
- ttt0 6y ago
  I don't know. For example, did anyone argued for shutting Facebook down entirely when they refused to remove holocaust denial? I think this is precisely what people mean with this "meme" and it is a fair point.
  - mumblemumble 6y ago
    Yes. And even suggesting otherwise furthers the whole, "I reject reality in order to substitute my own narrative that better supports the position I'm trying to take," thing. And, in this particular context, it's also a non sequitur. Go read the court filings. The story of what actually happened is being told there. It's a public record.
    - ttt0 6y ago
      The reason I was asking is because I legitimately haven't seen anyone doing that, which suggested to me that this opinion certainly wasn't anywhere near as popular as the opinion that tech companies should take down basically everything that was ever associated with Trump. Most people generally accept that strictly legally speaking tech companies have a right to shut down anyone they want, as long as it doesn't violate the contract (I personally disagree that it should work like this), but I just don't think that is the point.

by ttt0 6y ago

mumblemumble 6y ago

The problem with JAQing off is that, even when it's done after taking the time to fully understand the situation, that generally isn't evident. So it typically inserts vastly more noise than signal into the discussion.

ttt0 6y ago
I don't know. For example, did anyone argued for shutting Facebook down entirely when they refused to remove holocaust denial? I think this is precisely what people mean with this "meme" and it is a fair point.
- mumblemumble 6y ago
  Yes. And even suggesting otherwise furthers the whole, "I reject reality in order to substitute my own narrative that better supports the position I'm trying to take," thing. And, in this particular context, it's also a non sequitur. Go read the court filings. The story of what actually happened is being told there. It's a public record.
  - ttt0 6y ago
    The reason I was asking is because I legitimately haven't seen anyone doing that, which suggested to me that this opinion certainly wasn't anywhere near as popular as the opinion that tech companies should take down basically everything that was ever associated with Trump. Most people generally accept that strictly legally speaking tech companies have a right to shut down anyone they want, as long as it doesn't violate the contract (I personally disagree that it should work like this), but I just don't think that is the point.