4 ms·

This reasoning strikes me as very similar to what is called out as perceiving oneself to be a "temporarily embarrassed billionaire" in the context of poor peopl

by 4bpp 6y ago

This reasoning strikes me as very similar to what is called out as perceiving oneself to be a "temporarily embarrassed billionaire" in the context of poor people voting against taxes and redistribution. I for my part do not feel the sort of empathy for Google that this argument seems to be predicated on me feeling, and I can't imagine this changing even if I were to operate my own bar. My bar would not be a temporarily embarrassed Google, so to speak. > start your own ...and start your own DDoS protection, DNS hierarchy, payment processor etc. as well? In the context of bars, I have not heard of beer companies, kitchen equipment suppliers, map makers or PoS terminal providers demand that the bar ban a particular customer on threat of refusing to service them, either, so that proposal seems rather more realistic than the one we are actually talking about here.

_trampeltier 6y ago
That's when the digital world becomes infrastucture and now finally people and politics start to see what infrastructure in just private hands mean. They have no rights at all. Even the president from US can easely banned just as we saw.
- eppp 6y ago
  Twitter isnt infrastructure. The internet is. This isnt a valid comparison.
  - _trampeltier 6y ago
    Yes and no. Social media is for politics maybe a bit like infrastructure. But also if nobody wanna host your server (like Parler/AWS) then you just loose everything. It is now the first time it hit a president from a large country. But its not really different from no bank wanna do business with for ex. the porn industry.
52-6F-62 6y ago
> I have not heard of beer companies, kitchen equipment suppliers, map makers or PoS terminal providers demand that the bar ban a particular customer on threat of refusing to service them, either, so that proposal seems rather more realistic than the one we are actually talking about here. It absolutely happens in beer companies, kitchen equipment suppliers, etc. Ex: I doubt you would find a high end distiller advertising that they're sold, especially without a distribution deal, in Mick's Souse Hole, North Etobicoke. There is all kinds of heavily established strata and bartering lines in all manner of business. That's nothing new at all. If a given business or client establishes itself as an unworthy partner, no deals are made or existing deals are broken—at least to the limits of the moral stand on either side. In all industries. It just happens, some businesses, or industries in general, care less to establish moral boundaries than others. But in any industry: "bad for business" is "bad for business"; and "bad for business" is avoided. I suppose my point beyond talking about beer companies is: this is nothing unique to Twitter et al. Twitter [et al] is just highly visible. I don't think Jim from Etobicoke, Canada, one eye closed and slobbering, has a case for arguing he should be represented on the Pernod label just because he wants to be. I doubt most people do. But most people don't care what Jim or Pernod do.

by 4bpp 6y ago

_trampeltier 6y ago

That's when the digital world becomes infrastucture and now finally people and politics start to see what infrastructure in just private hands mean. They have no rights at all. Even the president from US can easely banned just as we saw.

eppp 6y ago
Twitter isnt infrastructure. The internet is. This isnt a valid comparison.
- _trampeltier 6y ago
  Yes and no. Social media is for politics maybe a bit like infrastructure. But also if nobody wanna host your server (like Parler/AWS) then you just loose everything. It is now the first time it hit a president from a large country. But its not really different from no bank wanna do business with for ex. the porn industry.

52-6F-62 6y ago

> I have not heard of beer companies, kitchen equipment suppliers, map makers or PoS terminal providers demand that the bar ban a particular customer on threat of refusing to service them, either, so that proposal seems rather more realistic than the one we are actually talking about here. It absolutely happens in beer companies, kitchen equipment suppliers, etc. Ex: I doubt you would find a high end distiller advertising that they're sold, especially without a distribution deal, in Mick's Souse Hole, North Etobicoke. There is all kinds of heavily established strata and bartering lines in all manner of business. That's nothing new at all. If a given business or client establishes itself as an unworthy partner, no deals are made or existing deals are broken—at least to the limits of the moral stand on either side. In all industries. It just happens, some businesses, or industries in general, care less to establish moral boundaries than others. But in any industry: "bad for business" is "bad for business"; and "bad for business" is avoided. I suppose my point beyond talking about beer companies is: this is nothing unique to Twitter et al. Twitter [et al] is just highly visible. I don't think Jim from Etobicoke, Canada, one eye closed and slobbering, has a case for arguing he should be represented on the Pernod label just because he wants to be. I doubt most people do. But most people don't care what Jim or Pernod do.