4 ms·

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 fol

by 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.
  - furr 6y ago
    > I honestly couldn't care less about some sports controversies I didn't ask if you did, I provided an excellent example of what you're describing. In your scenario, the 1A would prohibit a business (the NFL), from restricting speech by an employee (Kapernick). This principle is what you're in favor of, correct? "DDOS protection services" are not a "basic" service for the majority of private entities. So how is your new 1A written to prohibit DDOS protection companies from restricting speech?
    - ttt0 6y ago
      > I'm talking specifically about the banks and basic services like I listed. I'm not trying to be mean, but what part of this statement should I clarify for you to understand? Should barbershops be subjected to the regulations of auto industry? It doesn't make any sense. > "DDOS protection services" are not a "basic" service for the majority of private entities. So how is your new 1A written to prohibit DDOS protection companies from restricting speech? I'm not talking about literally rewriting the 1A, I'm taking about regulating the tech industry.
      - furr 6y ago
        what part of this statement should I clarify for you to understand "DDOS protection services" are not a "basic" service, so why would you include them in this list? I'm taking about regulating the tech industry ...by extending 1A rights. So what would meet your legal standard of "tech," since now we've suddenly shifted to only regulating those? Banks are not "tech" companies. Are you dodging the NFL example so hard because the NFL would be excluded from your legislation? They have $91B market cap and actively develop new tech. https://operations.nfl.com/gameday/technology/technology-and-the-game/ https://operations.nfl.com/gameday/technology/technology-and...
        ttt0 6y ago
        I'm "dodging" the NFL example, because again, I do not care about NFL. At all. They can be forced to keep Colin or not, pick whatever answer you want. It's has nothing to do with it. And nothing has shifted, I'm still talking about: > banks, domain registrars, payment processors, cloud services, DDOS protection services etc. If you expect me to come up on a spot with a bunch of legalspeak to precisely define what would be the target of such legislation(s), it's not going to happen as I am not a lawyer. If you disagree with my opinion and you think that tech companies like the ones listed above and most importantly the banks should be able to just arbitrarily shut down anyone they dislike in the era of Covid, just say so. But don't give me that hairsplitting in an attempt to portray it as something that's either impossible or "illogical" to do, as it's simply not true and this entire argument is just stupid, if not dishonest. It's just semantics.

by ttt0 6y ago

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.
- furr 6y ago
  > I honestly couldn't care less about some sports controversies I didn't ask if you did, I provided an excellent example of what you're describing. In your scenario, the 1A would prohibit a business (the NFL), from restricting speech by an employee (Kapernick). This principle is what you're in favor of, correct? "DDOS protection services" are not a "basic" service for the majority of private entities. So how is your new 1A written to prohibit DDOS protection companies from restricting speech?
  - ttt0 6y ago
    > I'm talking specifically about the banks and basic services like I listed. I'm not trying to be mean, but what part of this statement should I clarify for you to understand? Should barbershops be subjected to the regulations of auto industry? It doesn't make any sense. > "DDOS protection services" are not a "basic" service for the majority of private entities. So how is your new 1A written to prohibit DDOS protection companies from restricting speech? I'm not talking about literally rewriting the 1A, I'm taking about regulating the tech industry.
    - furr 6y ago
      what part of this statement should I clarify for you to understand "DDOS protection services" are not a "basic" service, so why would you include them in this list? I'm taking about regulating the tech industry ...by extending 1A rights. So what would meet your legal standard of "tech," since now we've suddenly shifted to only regulating those? Banks are not "tech" companies. Are you dodging the NFL example so hard because the NFL would be excluded from your legislation? They have $91B market cap and actively develop new tech. https://operations.nfl.com/gameday/technology/technology-and-the-game/ https://operations.nfl.com/gameday/technology/technology-and...
      - ttt0 6y ago
        I'm "dodging" the NFL example, because again, I do not care about NFL. At all. They can be forced to keep Colin or not, pick whatever answer you want. It's has nothing to do with it. And nothing has shifted, I'm still talking about: > banks, domain registrars, payment processors, cloud services, DDOS protection services etc. If you expect me to come up on a spot with a bunch of legalspeak to precisely define what would be the target of such legislation(s), it's not going to happen as I am not a lawyer. If you disagree with my opinion and you think that tech companies like the ones listed above and most importantly the banks should be able to just arbitrarily shut down anyone they dislike in the era of Covid, just say so. But don't give me that hairsplitting in an attempt to portray it as something that's either impossible or "illogical" to do, as it's simply not true and this entire argument is just stupid, if not dishonest. It's just semantics.