5 ms·

I like the idea myself. Either everybody gets free speech or nobody does, the law can be amended to force accommodation of unpopular speech or it can be torn do

I like the idea myself. Either everybody gets free speech or nobody does, the law can be amended to force accommodation of unpopular speech or it can be torn down so that everyone is equally silenced. I'm well passed letting millionaire sjw children do whatever they want.

devwastaken 6y ago
You have freedom of speech. Make your own platform. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of social and business repercussions by others. You don't get to use a private companies business to forcefully host your content. Repealing 230 means you don't get an opinion on the net anymore. The threat of legal repercussions are a lot more censoring than twitter. Content will still be made by companies and they'll still continue whatever information manipulation they're up to. Perhaps it's not the 'sjw children'. Maybe it's that your position is wrong and others arent going to put up with it. There's social repercussions the same as anywhere else.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  "Make your own platform." That worked well for Parler and Gab, right? Let's be honest, the people who are pressuring big tech companies and others to deplatform and censor their political adversaries are doing so because they want to deny any power to those they disagree with. It won't stop with social media companies, because then they go to the app store vendors. It won't stop with app store vendors because then they go to the hosting providers. And from there it will undoubtedly go to backbone carriers. And ultimately to power utilities. And they'll be denied payment processing and other financial services. At some point, this line of thinking will culminate in jailing dissidents and denying them basic services like public transportation. Wait that's already happening, with transit unions asking to create no ride lists (https://www.cato.org/blog/transit-unions-dhs-give-america-no-ride-list https://www.cato.org/blog/transit-unions-dhs-give-america-no...). And the supporters of such policies actually feel they hold the moral high ground to criticize the CCP for social credit scores. I also don't get why people keep claiming "you don't get to do X with a private business". We regulate private business all the time. If you disagree, then lift all the COVID restrictions and let every business open up. Or remove regulations from existing utilities, from airlines, from financial services, etc. Or let a private business refuse to bake a cake. Otherwise, drop this trope because it is trite and unhelpful. Ultimately the reason why the "private company" argument does not work is because there is no real choice or competition at all for the tech companies. First, social media companies have little competition due to the moats of their network effects. Second, to the extent there is competition (say between Apple and Google's app stores/mobile phone platforms), there is indirect collusion because these companies all exist in Silicon Valley and reflect the political culture of their headquarters - which is why they make the same decisions on the same day. Third, Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, and likely others are way too big and in a sane world would need to be broken up on anti-trust grounds. Fourth, Facebook and Twitter are the public's digital town square. The mere technicality of them being private is a poor excuse for recognizing their role as a public utility. They should be regulated to carry all speech that is not explicitly illegal.
  - devwastaken 6y ago
    There are plenty of T1 locations where you can colocate or use a companies provided solutions. They take private payments not subject to credit card companies. Also known as "learn how to build servers". Private businesses don't have to bake the cake. Equating gay discrimination to online opinions is not genuine. Having regulation does not mean you should regulate everything. You're conflating private companies with government. Private companies can tell you to pound sand if you say something they don't like, that's their right same as any individual. Government cannot come after you for your speech. Private entities doing this is very good reason why government does not at all have to be involved nor should be. People that don't respect this explicit difference are wrong, but that does not mean the private companies actions are wrong either. Lack of essential utilities prevents people from basic operation in society. No electricity means no water which means no sanitation, which becomes a significant public health problem that harms other people. No propane/electricity means no heat, no cooling, which can lead to you freezing in the north or dying of heat in the south. You're not going to be severely irrepeirably harmed or have your economic freedoms restricted by not having twitter. Social media companies are too big. Tax the rich, fund a government created version of twitter.
girvo 6y ago
You have no right to use others private property.

devwastaken 6y ago

You have freedom of speech. Make your own platform. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of social and business repercussions by others. You don't get to use a private companies business to forcefully host your content. Repealing 230 means you don't get an opinion on the net anymore. The threat of legal repercussions are a lot more censoring than twitter. Content will still be made by companies and they'll still continue whatever information manipulation they're up to. Perhaps it's not the 'sjw children'. Maybe it's that your position is wrong and others arent going to put up with it. There's social repercussions the same as anywhere else.

throwawaysea 6y ago
"Make your own platform." That worked well for Parler and Gab, right? Let's be honest, the people who are pressuring big tech companies and others to deplatform and censor their political adversaries are doing so because they want to deny any power to those they disagree with. It won't stop with social media companies, because then they go to the app store vendors. It won't stop with app store vendors because then they go to the hosting providers. And from there it will undoubtedly go to backbone carriers. And ultimately to power utilities. And they'll be denied payment processing and other financial services. At some point, this line of thinking will culminate in jailing dissidents and denying them basic services like public transportation. Wait that's already happening, with transit unions asking to create no ride lists (https://www.cato.org/blog/transit-unions-dhs-give-america-no-ride-list https://www.cato.org/blog/transit-unions-dhs-give-america-no...). And the supporters of such policies actually feel they hold the moral high ground to criticize the CCP for social credit scores. I also don't get why people keep claiming "you don't get to do X with a private business". We regulate private business all the time. If you disagree, then lift all the COVID restrictions and let every business open up. Or remove regulations from existing utilities, from airlines, from financial services, etc. Or let a private business refuse to bake a cake. Otherwise, drop this trope because it is trite and unhelpful. Ultimately the reason why the "private company" argument does not work is because there is no real choice or competition at all for the tech companies. First, social media companies have little competition due to the moats of their network effects. Second, to the extent there is competition (say between Apple and Google's app stores/mobile phone platforms), there is indirect collusion because these companies all exist in Silicon Valley and reflect the political culture of their headquarters - which is why they make the same decisions on the same day. Third, Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Microsoft, and likely others are way too big and in a sane world would need to be broken up on anti-trust grounds. Fourth, Facebook and Twitter are the public's digital town square. The mere technicality of them being private is a poor excuse for recognizing their role as a public utility. They should be regulated to carry all speech that is not explicitly illegal.
- devwastaken 6y ago
  There are plenty of T1 locations where you can colocate or use a companies provided solutions. They take private payments not subject to credit card companies. Also known as "learn how to build servers". Private businesses don't have to bake the cake. Equating gay discrimination to online opinions is not genuine. Having regulation does not mean you should regulate everything. You're conflating private companies with government. Private companies can tell you to pound sand if you say something they don't like, that's their right same as any individual. Government cannot come after you for your speech. Private entities doing this is very good reason why government does not at all have to be involved nor should be. People that don't respect this explicit difference are wrong, but that does not mean the private companies actions are wrong either. Lack of essential utilities prevents people from basic operation in society. No electricity means no water which means no sanitation, which becomes a significant public health problem that harms other people. No propane/electricity means no heat, no cooling, which can lead to you freezing in the north or dying of heat in the south. You're not going to be severely irrepeirably harmed or have your economic freedoms restricted by not having twitter. Social media companies are too big. Tax the rich, fund a government created version of twitter.

girvo 6y ago

You have no right to use others private property.