6 ms·

> 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 sc

by 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.
    - yorwba 6y ago
      > tech companies like the ones listed above and most importantly the banks should be able to just arbitrarily shut down anyone they dislike Yes. If you want to be served by good companies who genuinely value you as a customer because they view doing business with you as beneficial, that's the easiest way to get there. The alternative is bad companies providing the worst possible service they legally can to customers they don't really want because the law forces them to, which makes it more difficult for good companies to compete with them for market share. But if the bad companies arbitrarily refuse to do business with anyone they dislike, the rejected customers will go to the good companies instead, which helps them grow and improve their service. Note that this is exactly what happened with Parler: "bad" AWS refused them, so they went to a "good" hoster instead.
      - ttt0 6y ago
        > If you want to be served by good companies who genuinely value you as a customer because they view doing business with you as beneficial, that's the easiest way to get there. We are already here. Generally speaking this is most often true when the client is forced to use certain services, not the other way around. Like public healthcare or public institutions in general. On the other hand, in Europe my bank is legally obligated to provide me a basic service and they treated me very nicely whenever I had any problems, I can't complain. Also we can circle back to the Google example - they treat everyone like garbage precisely because they can arbitrarily shut down anyone, anytime, for no reason at all. > Note that this is exactly what happened with Parler: "bad" AWS refused them, so they went to a "good" hoster instead. Almost everyone, if not everyone, does the same thing. Parler will either have to become just a second Twitter or they will be kicked off their new hosting too.
        yorwba 6y ago
        > in Europe my bank is legally obligated to provide me a basic service and they treated me very nicely Most likely you're not the kind of customer they'd rather not be doing business with. > they treat everyone like garbage precisely because they can arbitrarily shut down anyone Do you expect them to treat people they'd prefer to shut down better than garbage if they weren't allowed to shut them down? > Parler will either have to become just a second Twitter or they will be kicked off their new hosting too. Is there nobody among Parler's millions of users who'd be able and willing to host them so they don't have to worry about alignment of interests anymore?

by furr 6y ago

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.
  - yorwba 6y ago
    > tech companies like the ones listed above and most importantly the banks should be able to just arbitrarily shut down anyone they dislike Yes. If you want to be served by good companies who genuinely value you as a customer because they view doing business with you as beneficial, that's the easiest way to get there. The alternative is bad companies providing the worst possible service they legally can to customers they don't really want because the law forces them to, which makes it more difficult for good companies to compete with them for market share. But if the bad companies arbitrarily refuse to do business with anyone they dislike, the rejected customers will go to the good companies instead, which helps them grow and improve their service. Note that this is exactly what happened with Parler: "bad" AWS refused them, so they went to a "good" hoster instead.
    - ttt0 6y ago
      > If you want to be served by good companies who genuinely value you as a customer because they view doing business with you as beneficial, that's the easiest way to get there. We are already here. Generally speaking this is most often true when the client is forced to use certain services, not the other way around. Like public healthcare or public institutions in general. On the other hand, in Europe my bank is legally obligated to provide me a basic service and they treated me very nicely whenever I had any problems, I can't complain. Also we can circle back to the Google example - they treat everyone like garbage precisely because they can arbitrarily shut down anyone, anytime, for no reason at all. > Note that this is exactly what happened with Parler: "bad" AWS refused them, so they went to a "good" hoster instead. Almost everyone, if not everyone, does the same thing. Parler will either have to become just a second Twitter or they will be kicked off their new hosting too.
      - yorwba 6y ago
        > in Europe my bank is legally obligated to provide me a basic service and they treated me very nicely Most likely you're not the kind of customer they'd rather not be doing business with. > they treat everyone like garbage precisely because they can arbitrarily shut down anyone Do you expect them to treat people they'd prefer to shut down better than garbage if they weren't allowed to shut them down? > Parler will either have to become just a second Twitter or they will be kicked off their new hosting too. Is there nobody among Parler's millions of users who'd be able and willing to host them so they don't have to worry about alignment of interests anymore?