4 ms·

Because the insurrection on capitol hill provides the cover of legitimacy for people to act in a manner that also may be very inconsistent and politicized. Jef

by jariel 6y ago

Because the insurrection on capitol hill provides the cover of legitimacy for people to act in a manner that also may be very inconsistent and politicized. Jeff Bezos owns news publications, he has a worldview and likes to flaunt it to some extent, moreover, these systems are prone to the possibility of arbitrary, and often political decisions. Note that historically, rich dudes bought newspapers to attack their political and business rivals. Though I don't think it's entirely like that today, we can't say there isn't some of that going on. Literally Emamnuel Macron and Angela Merkel have spoken out about the arbitrary 'banning' of groups and individuals, and because there is an 'imminent consideration over here in the US' doesn't abnegate our broader concerns about arbitrary banning. The EU will likely be acting on it. Banning the KKK is not something anyone is worried about. Banning some app because we don't like the extent to which they have moderated their discussions, is a much more slippery slope. Especially in light of other institutions that don't moderate very well either. If the case could rationally be made that FB and Twitter are in the end, equally problematic in their moderation ... then it's likely they would not get banned from various places - they have money, power, influence and possibly friendly relations with other platforms. It's a dangerous precedent and the EU leaders are essentially correct to speak out and even more so to act.

jcranmer 6y ago
> Literally Emamnuel Macron and Angela Merkel have spoken out about the arbitrary 'banning' of groups and individuals, and because there is an 'imminent consideration over here in the US' doesn't abnegate our broader concerns about arbitrary banning. This is somewhat amusing to me, as Germany is a country that bans neo-Nazi political parties and makes Holocaust denial a federal crime, whereas both actions are seen as violations of constitutionally-protected free speech in the US. The concern, I suspect, is more over the scope of power that private broadcast platforms have, to which my retort is to ask what their antitrust regulators have been doing for the past decade.
- jariel 6y ago
  Well, starting with the fact that there was 80M dead in Europe and the entire country was flattened (it's real in Germany, not just something we see on documentaries). So 'that banned group' are not just some bumpkins. But also, governments come and go but there is at least some degree of representation of the people. I have absolutely zero trust in Jeff Bezos to do anything other than what he wants to think he can do or get away with. I don't fully trust governments either, but at least there are degrees of transparency, courts, etc.
SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
A few months ago, Emmanuel Macron's government deported hundreds of people and closed at least a dozen mosques for extremism. So it's pretty hard to view his statement as a general endorsement of free speech, rather than a dispute about who gets to decide to restrict it. (That's not to say their position is unreasonable; I just don't agree with their implicit assumption that the government can be better trusted to use the power of speech restrictions fairly.)
- jariel 6y ago
  ??? If there are people, plotting violence, even from a Mosque, then you ask them to leave or arrest them, right? That's legit. Just like if people are attacking Capitol Hill, or even plotting to - you arrest them. Why? Because it's lawless. Not because 'We don't agree with them'. Thankfully, there will be laws that have to be adhered to. Courts. Constitutions. With Jack Dorsey, there's none of that, it's whatever he feels on that day. It's a little absurd to suggest that totally arbitrary individuals should have the right to arbitrarily control discourse - over the regulations (hopefully few and far between) applied by elected governments, overseen by courts, the constitution etc..

by jariel 6y ago

jcranmer 6y ago

> Literally Emamnuel Macron and Angela Merkel have spoken out about the arbitrary 'banning' of groups and individuals, and because there is an 'imminent consideration over here in the US' doesn't abnegate our broader concerns about arbitrary banning. This is somewhat amusing to me, as Germany is a country that bans neo-Nazi political parties and makes Holocaust denial a federal crime, whereas both actions are seen as violations of constitutionally-protected free speech in the US. The concern, I suspect, is more over the scope of power that private broadcast platforms have, to which my retort is to ask what their antitrust regulators have been doing for the past decade.

jariel 6y ago
Well, starting with the fact that there was 80M dead in Europe and the entire country was flattened (it's real in Germany, not just something we see on documentaries). So 'that banned group' are not just some bumpkins. But also, governments come and go but there is at least some degree of representation of the people. I have absolutely zero trust in Jeff Bezos to do anything other than what he wants to think he can do or get away with. I don't fully trust governments either, but at least there are degrees of transparency, courts, etc.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

A few months ago, Emmanuel Macron's government deported hundreds of people and closed at least a dozen mosques for extremism. So it's pretty hard to view his statement as a general endorsement of free speech, rather than a dispute about who gets to decide to restrict it. (That's not to say their position is unreasonable; I just don't agree with their implicit assumption that the government can be better trusted to use the power of speech restrictions fairly.)

jariel 6y ago
??? If there are people, plotting violence, even from a Mosque, then you ask them to leave or arrest them, right? That's legit. Just like if people are attacking Capitol Hill, or even plotting to - you arrest them. Why? Because it's lawless. Not because 'We don't agree with them'. Thankfully, there will be laws that have to be adhered to. Courts. Constitutions. With Jack Dorsey, there's none of that, it's whatever he feels on that day. It's a little absurd to suggest that totally arbitrary individuals should have the right to arbitrarily control discourse - over the regulations (hopefully few and far between) applied by elected governments, overseen by courts, the constitution etc..