6 ms·

Not that I disagree, no one should ever rely on Google or do any business with them. But as it stands right now, our corporate overlords completely privatized o

by ttt0 6y ago

Not that I disagree, no one should ever rely on Google or do any business with them. But as it stands right now, our corporate overlords completely privatized our freedom of speech, especially considering the fact that we're in the middle of Covid lockdowns, so you can't just go out and speak your mind. That's why I think the government should take action.

35fbe7d3d5b9 6y ago
> That's why I think the government should take action. And do what, exactly?
- ttt0 6y ago
  Like extending free speech laws to these corporations. So banks, domain registrars, payment processors, cloud services, DDOS protection services etc. can't just terminate the contract for simply disagreeing with speech that is protected under the First Amendment.
  - 35fbe7d3d5b9 6y ago
    You're essentially asking the government to compel private businesses to host speech that they disagree with. I don't think that's a viable path.
    - ttt0 6y ago
      Specifically with the things I listed - yes, I do. In regards to banking it's not even a free market in the first place.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwaway19937 6y ago
    This change would substantially benefit large providers at the expense of smaller providers. AWS can afford to be sued for hosting a forum or the costs of a boycott for hosting Stormfront - a smaller provider could easily be wiped out. Edited to add the following. Most of this post was wrong. ttt0 is right that section 230 protects providers in the cases I mentioned. TIL about the scope of section 230 provider protection.
    - ttt0 6y ago
      Boycotting a company for doing something its legally obligated to do doesn't make any sense. Regarding lawsuits, section 230 is a thing.
andrewzah 6y ago
And do what? Force people and businesses to have clients they don't want (outside of protected characteristics)? I don't get why people think that the government here can actually do anything without severely impinging on personal freedoms. As a government contractor, I see first hand how f'ing useless our cronyist, bureaucratic government is. Anything they try to do will backfire and make things worse for the average citizen. The only real solution is to get people to stop treating facebook like the one and only place for messaging people or posting things. They're only "overlords" so long as people only use facebook or twitter.
- ttt0 6y ago
  Facebook and Twitter is just a tip of the iceberg. Even if you tried to do something different, other companies you have to rely on will either force you to follow what Facebook and Twitter does or shut you down. I'm talking about services like: > banks, domain registrars, payment processors, cloud services, DDOS protection services etc. > As a government contractor, I see first hand how f'ing useless our cronyist, bureaucratic government is. Anything they try to do will backfire and make things worse for the average citizen. I don't completely disagree with you there either, but it will also get just worse and worse if you don't take any action at all. Pick your poison, I guess?
  - furr 6y ago
    The First Amendment does not prohibit the private sector from restricting speech. Parler is free to (and did) find another vendor in the free market. If this option isn't realistic, bust up the monopoly that prevents it. If 1A was extended to private individuals and entities, should the NFL be forced to keep Colin Kaepernick employed after taking a knee?
    - ttt0 6y ago
      > The First Amendment does not prohibit the private sector from restricting speech. If it did I wouldn't be here arguing that it should. And let's stop pretending like we are so considered about the private sector and private companies aren't ever subjected to any regulations whatsoever. > If 1A was extended to private individuals and entities, should the NFL be forced to keep Colin Kaepernick employed after taking a knee? I honestly couldn't care less about some sports controversies. I'm talking specifically about the banks and basic services like I listed. They simply shouldn't be allowed to gang up on anyone and remove you from a polite society just like that.

by ttt0 6y ago

35fbe7d3d5b9 6y ago

> That's why I think the government should take action. And do what, exactly?

ttt0 6y ago
Like extending free speech laws to these corporations. So banks, domain registrars, payment processors, cloud services, DDOS protection services etc. can't just terminate the contract for simply disagreeing with speech that is protected under the First Amendment.
- 35fbe7d3d5b9 6y ago
  You're essentially asking the government to compel private businesses to host speech that they disagree with. I don't think that's a viable path.
  - ttt0 6y ago
    Specifically with the things I listed - yes, I do. In regards to banking it's not even a free market in the first place.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway19937 6y ago
  This change would substantially benefit large providers at the expense of smaller providers. AWS can afford to be sued for hosting a forum or the costs of a boycott for hosting Stormfront - a smaller provider could easily be wiped out. Edited to add the following. Most of this post was wrong. ttt0 is right that section 230 protects providers in the cases I mentioned. TIL about the scope of section 230 provider protection.
  - ttt0 6y ago
    Boycotting a company for doing something its legally obligated to do doesn't make any sense. Regarding lawsuits, section 230 is a thing.

andrewzah 6y ago

And do what? Force people and businesses to have clients they don't want (outside of protected characteristics)? I don't get why people think that the government here can actually do anything without severely impinging on personal freedoms. As a government contractor, I see first hand how f'ing useless our cronyist, bureaucratic government is. Anything they try to do will backfire and make things worse for the average citizen. The only real solution is to get people to stop treating facebook like the one and only place for messaging people or posting things. They're only "overlords" so long as people only use facebook or twitter.

ttt0 6y ago
Facebook and Twitter is just a tip of the iceberg. Even if you tried to do something different, other companies you have to rely on will either force you to follow what Facebook and Twitter does or shut you down. I'm talking about services like: > banks, domain registrars, payment processors, cloud services, DDOS protection services etc. > As a government contractor, I see first hand how f'ing useless our cronyist, bureaucratic government is. Anything they try to do will backfire and make things worse for the average citizen. I don't completely disagree with you there either, but it will also get just worse and worse if you don't take any action at all. Pick your poison, I guess?
- furr 6y ago
  The First Amendment does not prohibit the private sector from restricting speech. Parler is free to (and did) find another vendor in the free market. If this option isn't realistic, bust up the monopoly that prevents it. If 1A was extended to private individuals and entities, should the NFL be forced to keep Colin Kaepernick employed after taking a knee?
  - ttt0 6y ago
    > The First Amendment does not prohibit the private sector from restricting speech. If it did I wouldn't be here arguing that it should. And let's stop pretending like we are so considered about the private sector and private companies aren't ever subjected to any regulations whatsoever. > If 1A was extended to private individuals and entities, should the NFL be forced to keep Colin Kaepernick employed after taking a knee? I honestly couldn't care less about some sports controversies. I'm talking specifically about the banks and basic services like I listed. They simply shouldn't be allowed to gang up on anyone and remove you from a polite society just like that.