3 ms·

I feel like you're ignoring the competition aspect of it. If one party finds it 100 times easier to spread their message than the other the latter would not be

by DenisM 6y ago

I feel like you're ignoring the competition aspect of it. If one party finds it 100 times easier to spread their message than the other the latter would not be heard even if their message is twice as appealing. If both parties found it hard to spread their message the ideas would be competing on their merits, but the higher the cost discrepancy the less impact the merit has on the outcome.

eightysixfour 6y ago
I think I understand the competition aspect - I still think freedom of speech doesn't guarantee you equal competition or equal opportunity to reach an audience. You have to convince the broadcasters to carry your message and always have, the only difference now is the broadcasters have to opt-out of your message instead of opt-in.
- DenisM 6y ago
  Thanks for replying. Your perspective looks entirely alien to me, but I respect it and appreciate the opportunity to understand. If I may use an analogy. Suppose four major airlines refused to carry one political group. Your logic then would suggest they are no worse off since they can as well drive or take a bus to get places, so there is nothing to worry about. Is that right?
  - eightysixfour 6y ago
    > If I may use an analogy. Suppose four major airlines refused to carry one political group. Your logic then would suggest they are no worse off since they can as well drive or take a bus to get places, so there is nothing to worry about. Is that right? I mean this just happened. Many of the airlines wouldn't allow those involved in the attack on the Capitol on their flights back to wherever they came from. And no, I don't have a problem with this. Either the other airlines will fly those people or no one will and they will have to travel via alternative means. I would have a problem if the government told airlines that passengers, as a result of only their political group, were not allowed to fly. I would also say that I am more hesitant to agree in the case of this analogy about being "deplatformed" by all of the airlines than I am by social media or hosting providers (cloud or not) since airlines are a heavily regulated industry with a very deep, government-backed moat. > they are no worse off I'd like to clarify that I don't think they're no worse off, but I also don't believe we have a fundamental right to be served by a company unless they are a utility that has a government backed monopoly or quasi-monopoly (or you are not being served as a result of your membership in a protected class). That's why I feel confident in being pro-net neutrality for ISPs, anti-forced hosting for hosting providers, and lean towards treating DNS like an ISP. I'm also pro-federated services for these reasons, because I believe platforms should have control over their platforms, and I believe we the people should have more diverse platforms and more control over the ones we use. A lot of my beliefs about this probably stem from being a moderator on a decently large online community about 15 years ago as well as working in the hosting industry for a short stint.
panarky 6y ago
Stop pretending that the current censorship is targeted at one party. The censorship is rightly targeted at abusive, threatening and violent content. Of one party is spewing more of that toxicity, then they'll get censored more.

by DenisM 6y ago

eightysixfour 6y ago

I think I understand the competition aspect - I still think freedom of speech doesn't guarantee you equal competition or equal opportunity to reach an audience. You have to convince the broadcasters to carry your message and always have, the only difference now is the broadcasters have to opt-out of your message instead of opt-in.

DenisM 6y ago
Thanks for replying. Your perspective looks entirely alien to me, but I respect it and appreciate the opportunity to understand. If I may use an analogy. Suppose four major airlines refused to carry one political group. Your logic then would suggest they are no worse off since they can as well drive or take a bus to get places, so there is nothing to worry about. Is that right?
- eightysixfour 6y ago
  > If I may use an analogy. Suppose four major airlines refused to carry one political group. Your logic then would suggest they are no worse off since they can as well drive or take a bus to get places, so there is nothing to worry about. Is that right? I mean this just happened. Many of the airlines wouldn't allow those involved in the attack on the Capitol on their flights back to wherever they came from. And no, I don't have a problem with this. Either the other airlines will fly those people or no one will and they will have to travel via alternative means. I would have a problem if the government told airlines that passengers, as a result of only their political group, were not allowed to fly. I would also say that I am more hesitant to agree in the case of this analogy about being "deplatformed" by all of the airlines than I am by social media or hosting providers (cloud or not) since airlines are a heavily regulated industry with a very deep, government-backed moat. > they are no worse off I'd like to clarify that I don't think they're no worse off, but I also don't believe we have a fundamental right to be served by a company unless they are a utility that has a government backed monopoly or quasi-monopoly (or you are not being served as a result of your membership in a protected class). That's why I feel confident in being pro-net neutrality for ISPs, anti-forced hosting for hosting providers, and lean towards treating DNS like an ISP. I'm also pro-federated services for these reasons, because I believe platforms should have control over their platforms, and I believe we the people should have more diverse platforms and more control over the ones we use. A lot of my beliefs about this probably stem from being a moderator on a decently large online community about 15 years ago as well as working in the hosting industry for a short stint.

panarky 6y ago

Stop pretending that the current censorship is targeted at one party. The censorship is rightly targeted at abusive, threatening and violent content. Of one party is spewing more of that toxicity, then they'll get censored more.