3 ms·

Something is very wrong here. Now the platforms are being de-platformed. Google, Apple, Amazon and Twilio all felt the need to de-platform Parler. Now it looks

by xupybd 6y ago

Something is very wrong here. Now the platforms are being de-platformed. Google, Apple, Amazon and Twilio all felt the need to de-platform Parler. Now it looks like Google is starting down the same path with Minds. Incitement to violence is a crime and should not be broadcast but to what degree should we hold the platforms responsible and who should be allowed to? Facebook recently had a live stream of the Christchurch shooter, probably one of the most horrific things to go on their platform. But people kept doing business with them. We understand that it's not possible to moderate perfectly and that sometimes it takes time to remove posts. But for some reason these smaller right leaning platforms are not given the same immunity from their users content. Why? This is all too arbitrary, there is no due process. There isn't even any public information on the exact lines that were crossed. This is largely because it's private companies that have the power to pull the rug out from these platforms without any oversight. If all of the major players in an industry refuse to do business with you and you haven't broken any laws shouldn't there be some protection by the government to ensure you can do business?

fakedang 6y ago
I can't help but say it, but I fear Democrats will tolerate this deplatforming, and even call for it (look at AOC), only to entrench Big Tech further down. In the end, they'll conclude that BigTech is so huge that only they are the rightful arbiters of an app store, hence we'll not see a breakup or any disciplinary action on them soon. It's already too late for a competing app store to develop, but now is the time for government to actually hold its nose and protect the small players. Else why bother with the charade of Free Speech and governmental sovereignty, when both of those will be controlled by tech platforms in proxy?
- xupybd 6y ago
  This pattern is unfortunately non partisan and goes much deeper than the current culture wars. In the past we were not doing business with people due to the color of their skin, we've done it due to their sexuality and now we are doing it due to their political views. Well this probably isn't the first time people have been sanctioned like this for political reasons. I think in every totalitarian government that has ever exists, left or right this sort of thing has happened. There is something about human societies that is tricky to get right. We want freedom for everyone to live life as they choose, to do with business with whom they choose. But we also have to have a society where everyone is free to have access to the same basic services. Online services are new and uncharted territory but they are becoming increasingly important.
myWindoonn 6y ago
Nobody is obligated to loan you their computers, no. If we were seeing a refusal to peer or route traffic, then maybe it would be a different story.
- xupybd 6y ago
  No they are not. But if every restaurant in town refuses to serve a group of society does that warrant government intervention. It appeared to during the civil rights movement. I'd like to know what is different about this?
  - Shish2k 6y ago
    > It appeared to during the civil rights movement. I'd like to know what is different about this? Support for a political group is a choice, skin colour isn't
    - xupybd 6y ago
      I'd argue that many on the right now find them selves outcasts in the world of social media as they are now lumped in with Neo Nazis, insurrectionists and all sorts of other nasties. I'd also argue that it's not so cut and dry that you can choose your political leanings so freely. It seems there may be evidence that we are influenced by our genetics https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-genes-of-left-and-right/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-genes-of-left... If this is the case it's not so different.
  - myWindoonn 6y ago
    In 2018, Masterpiece Cakeshop [0] opened the door for religious beliefs and other First Amendment-protected expression to be used as a pretext to deny service to folks even if they would be otherwise protected. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission#Analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
    - mekal 6y ago

by xupybd 6y ago

fakedang 6y ago

I can't help but say it, but I fear Democrats will tolerate this deplatforming, and even call for it (look at AOC), only to entrench Big Tech further down. In the end, they'll conclude that BigTech is so huge that only they are the rightful arbiters of an app store, hence we'll not see a breakup or any disciplinary action on them soon. It's already too late for a competing app store to develop, but now is the time for government to actually hold its nose and protect the small players. Else why bother with the charade of Free Speech and governmental sovereignty, when both of those will be controlled by tech platforms in proxy?

xupybd 6y ago
This pattern is unfortunately non partisan and goes much deeper than the current culture wars. In the past we were not doing business with people due to the color of their skin, we've done it due to their sexuality and now we are doing it due to their political views. Well this probably isn't the first time people have been sanctioned like this for political reasons. I think in every totalitarian government that has ever exists, left or right this sort of thing has happened. There is something about human societies that is tricky to get right. We want freedom for everyone to live life as they choose, to do with business with whom they choose. But we also have to have a society where everyone is free to have access to the same basic services. Online services are new and uncharted territory but they are becoming increasingly important.

myWindoonn 6y ago

Nobody is obligated to loan you their computers, no. If we were seeing a refusal to peer or route traffic, then maybe it would be a different story.

xupybd 6y ago
No they are not. But if every restaurant in town refuses to serve a group of society does that warrant government intervention. It appeared to during the civil rights movement. I'd like to know what is different about this?
- Shish2k 6y ago
  > It appeared to during the civil rights movement. I'd like to know what is different about this? Support for a political group is a choice, skin colour isn't
  - xupybd 6y ago
    I'd argue that many on the right now find them selves outcasts in the world of social media as they are now lumped in with Neo Nazis, insurrectionists and all sorts of other nasties. I'd also argue that it's not so cut and dry that you can choose your political leanings so freely. It seems there may be evidence that we are influenced by our genetics https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-genes-of-left-and-right/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-genes-of-left... If this is the case it's not so different.
- myWindoonn 6y ago
  In 2018, Masterpiece Cakeshop [0] opened the door for religious beliefs and other First Amendment-protected expression to be used as a pretext to deny service to folks even if they would be otherwise protected. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission#Analysis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
  - mekal 6y ago