3 ms·

I disagree, in fact it enhances my impression of the US government in the way that it exercises restraint on its immense natural power. It's quite easy for gove

I disagree, in fact it enhances my impression of the US government in the way that it exercises restraint on its immense natural power. It's quite easy for governments to flex their power and regulate anything and everything. This is common in third world countries and developing societies: edicts are the answer to everything. It is the language of dictators. The US government can absolutely force Twitter and Facebook to do whatever it wants but it doesn't, instead it guarantees freedoms to enterprises and entrusts slow but deliberative bodies with the task of deciding when exceptions should be made. It creates courts and laws for companies to resolve disputes amongst themselves. These principles are upheld even at the government's own inconvenience. I find that far more admirable than the hasty and impulsive exercises of power that characterize uncivilized authorities that aspire to rule instead of govern.

scotty79 6y ago
Freedom is not something natural. In 100% freedom your stronger neighbour would have freedom to restrict your freedom and you would have freedom to resist, fail, and be sad about it. So your freedom is dependant of how much the strongest entity around is willing to limit freedom of your neighbors of restricting your freedom. US government showing restraint when major players on the market use their position to restrict freedom of smaller entity is reducing freedom not increasing it.
- themacguffinman 6y ago
  That's why the US government also sets limits on what private companies and their customers can do to restrict each other's freedoms. Under these democratically deliberated laws, Parler has as much freedom to use Twitter & Facebook as you have freedom to do use my lawn. The principle still holds even if every neighbor in your neighborhood hates you and denies you access to their lawn; The scope & scale of their lawn restriction is irrelevant because American society finds their freedom over their property to be more important than your freedom to use it. There are things that the US government deems too important to restrict, but Facebook & Twitter is well outside that category. That's where American society has drawn the line, and it's a line that I agree with as well.
  - scotty79 6y ago
    The thing I wrote about freedom has nothing to do with US or Parler or Facebook. It's a general observation that restraint of locally strongest entity doesn't necessarily give you more freedom. It can (and often does) give you less. And when it comes to Parler my concern was Amazon, not Twitter and Facebook. Why should hosting provider be able to choose whom he provides basic infrastructure? Was Parler illegal content they had to remove by law? Should they cut their electricity and water supply to the creator of Parler too because they don't like their content?
    - themacguffinman 6y ago
      The US government does draw the line at what it classifies to be utilities like electricity and water. AWS isn't considered a utility but I think it's far closer to one than the other companies. I'm personally skeptical that it should be because AWS encompasses a whole range of products, many of which have decent competition and aren't really "basic". The ability to host stuff yourself on the internet is, however, a freedom I consider to be basic and necessary, so I do support net neutrality and related legislation that classify ISPs as utilities.
shripadk 6y ago
> exercises restraint on its immense natural power I would have agreed with you provided it was the Government that had to do the banning first and took it's time and exercised restraint. This is different. Big Tech cut off US Government communication lines from the rest of the World. Now we will never know what Trump is thinking except if he does a press conference. We will never know what the White House is doing. This causes major network effects across the World as people across the World want to know what is going on in the White House and what is on Trump's mind. Before internet and social media all communications were between the World leaders/bureaucrats and the rest of the World was pretty much oblivious to what was happening unless it became breaking news. Everything was opaque. That is not what I want to go back to. Trust me you don't want to wake up one day to learn your country is at War with another nation because everything was kept under wraps till the last minute. If you had known earlier you would have rallied the masses and built public pressure. It is a public expectation to know what their leaders are upto. I want our leaders to be in the spotlight at all times. Trump is not just the President of USA, he is also a representative of USA to the rest of the World. Cutting off Trump's direct lines of communication cuts off feeds to the rest of the World about what is going on in his mind and the White House. This does not bode well for America as a responsible Democratic power. You do not cut off the lines to the Head of the Country with the World. No matter how much you disagree with him. This is irresponsible with Big Tech allowing it and US Congress keeping mum about it.
- themacguffinman 6y ago
  It doesn't make sense to suggest that Big Tech is even capable of cutting off US government communication lines. Twitter & Facebook is not the US government's communication lines. The government can and regularly does publish communications on its own internet infrastructure it controls and regulates. The government also maintains continuous contact with a global free press that breathlessly and rapidly reports on anything the government and Trump himself wants to say. Let's not misrepresent what this actually is: a private enterprise locking a political leader out of one of many communication platforms that the leader prefers. Twitter & Facebook are not and have never been critical requirements for the US government (or Trump) to communicate effectively.
- 6y ago

scotty79 6y ago

Freedom is not something natural. In 100% freedom your stronger neighbour would have freedom to restrict your freedom and you would have freedom to resist, fail, and be sad about it. So your freedom is dependant of how much the strongest entity around is willing to limit freedom of your neighbors of restricting your freedom. US government showing restraint when major players on the market use their position to restrict freedom of smaller entity is reducing freedom not increasing it.

themacguffinman 6y ago
That's why the US government also sets limits on what private companies and their customers can do to restrict each other's freedoms. Under these democratically deliberated laws, Parler has as much freedom to use Twitter & Facebook as you have freedom to do use my lawn. The principle still holds even if every neighbor in your neighborhood hates you and denies you access to their lawn; The scope & scale of their lawn restriction is irrelevant because American society finds their freedom over their property to be more important than your freedom to use it. There are things that the US government deems too important to restrict, but Facebook & Twitter is well outside that category. That's where American society has drawn the line, and it's a line that I agree with as well.
- scotty79 6y ago
  The thing I wrote about freedom has nothing to do with US or Parler or Facebook. It's a general observation that restraint of locally strongest entity doesn't necessarily give you more freedom. It can (and often does) give you less. And when it comes to Parler my concern was Amazon, not Twitter and Facebook. Why should hosting provider be able to choose whom he provides basic infrastructure? Was Parler illegal content they had to remove by law? Should they cut their electricity and water supply to the creator of Parler too because they don't like their content?
  - themacguffinman 6y ago
    The US government does draw the line at what it classifies to be utilities like electricity and water. AWS isn't considered a utility but I think it's far closer to one than the other companies. I'm personally skeptical that it should be because AWS encompasses a whole range of products, many of which have decent competition and aren't really "basic". The ability to host stuff yourself on the internet is, however, a freedom I consider to be basic and necessary, so I do support net neutrality and related legislation that classify ISPs as utilities.

shripadk 6y ago

> exercises restraint on its immense natural power I would have agreed with you provided it was the Government that had to do the banning first and took it's time and exercised restraint. This is different. Big Tech cut off US Government communication lines from the rest of the World. Now we will never know what Trump is thinking except if he does a press conference. We will never know what the White House is doing. This causes major network effects across the World as people across the World want to know what is going on in the White House and what is on Trump's mind. Before internet and social media all communications were between the World leaders/bureaucrats and the rest of the World was pretty much oblivious to what was happening unless it became breaking news. Everything was opaque. That is not what I want to go back to. Trust me you don't want to wake up one day to learn your country is at War with another nation because everything was kept under wraps till the last minute. If you had known earlier you would have rallied the masses and built public pressure. It is a public expectation to know what their leaders are upto. I want our leaders to be in the spotlight at all times. Trump is not just the President of USA, he is also a representative of USA to the rest of the World. Cutting off Trump's direct lines of communication cuts off feeds to the rest of the World about what is going on in his mind and the White House. This does not bode well for America as a responsible Democratic power. You do not cut off the lines to the Head of the Country with the World. No matter how much you disagree with him. This is irresponsible with Big Tech allowing it and US Congress keeping mum about it.

themacguffinman 6y ago
It doesn't make sense to suggest that Big Tech is even capable of cutting off US government communication lines. Twitter & Facebook is not the US government's communication lines. The government can and regularly does publish communications on its own internet infrastructure it controls and regulates. The government also maintains continuous contact with a global free press that breathlessly and rapidly reports on anything the government and Trump himself wants to say. Let's not misrepresent what this actually is: a private enterprise locking a political leader out of one of many communication platforms that the leader prefers. Twitter & Facebook are not and have never been critical requirements for the US government (or Trump) to communicate effectively.
6y ago