3 ms·

>If Trump really wants to get his thoughts out to the world, he can host his own website and publish them there And what's the recourse when the same forces co

>If Trump really wants to get his thoughts out to the world, he can host his own website and publish them there And what's the recourse when the same forces collude to shut someone or some group out of the hosting platform for wrongthink? Build your own server farm? Build your own cloudflare? Build your own DNS? How far do we go in allowing tyranny by a loud and powerful minority? If we can regulate corporations to prevent corporate monopolies, perhaps it's appropriate to implement loose regulations against social monopoly. Collusion to silence an entire set of viewpoints by unilaterally associating them with a minority of extremists is quite literally oppression.

mulmen 5y ago
> And what's the recourse when the same forces collude to shut someone or some group out of the hosting platform for wrongthink? I don't believe that "violent overthrow of the democratic process" specifically is a valid political position. I am comfortable discriminating against it. I am also comfortable with private parties exercising their constitutional rights to freedom of expression. > Build your own server farm? Build your own cloudflare? Build your own DNS? Yes, or find someone else to do business with. Or... change your behavior so it is less objectionable to those companies. I consider a free society to be a competitive marketplace for ideas. Some ideas thrive and grow, others wither and die. The first amendment is a mandate for minimal governmental regulation so the forces of competition can evaluate ideas. > How far do we go in allowing tyranny by a loud and powerful minority? We don't allow it at all, that's why these companies are able to set these policies and issue bans. Exercising first amendment rights is not tyranny. > If we can regulate corporations to prevent corporate monopolies, perhaps it's appropriate to implement loose regulations against social monopoly. It's not and whatever the concept of "social monopoly" is can only make sense if there is one party controlling all social expression, which is obviously not the case. You could also call this "social discrimination" and reuse the ideas of protected classes. But political views are not (and IMHO should not) be protected. This would be the equivalent of picking winners in the free market of ideas. Regulating social consensus and private beliefs is itself tyranny. The constitution is clearly designed to prevent exactly that outcome. > Collusion to silence an entire set of viewpoints by unilaterally associating them with a minority of extremists is quite literally oppression. This is not "literally oppression". There is no evidence that there was any collusion, only that violent overthrow of democratic processes is widely objectionable to many corporations and individuals. That many independent organizations came to the same conclusion is evidence that the system is working and that the idea itself has failed in the marketplace of ideas.
- concordDance 5y ago
  > violent overthrow of the democratic process Trump did not advocate for a violent overthrow as far as I know. > I consider a free society to be a competitive marketplace for ideas That requires those ideas to be heard. If everyone segregates into their own political bubbles there will be no competition of ideas, just endless echo chambers. > It's not and whatever the concept of "social monopoly" is can only make sense if there is one party controlling all social expression, which is obviously not the case Eh? The people controlling the big corporations that control most communication in the English speaking online world are of very particular political leanings. They might not control all expression but they certainly control most of it. > But political views are not (and IMHO should not) be protected. This would be the equivalent of picking winners in the free market of ideas. I don't see how preventing the silencing of some ideas is equivalent to picking winners. I'm not necessarily saying political views should be protected, just disputing the validity of your logic here. > That many independent organizations came to the same conclusion is evidence that the system is working and that the idea itself has failed in the marketplace of ideas. You say "independant", but there are strongly dominant cultures in those organizations and the people admitted to them are from a specific subset of the population. They might be somewhat independant in that Facebook doesn't decide what Twitter does (though I expect there's cross-polination of people moving back and forth between them), but they're both drawing from mostly the same pool of people and ideas. I expect that Trump supporters, for example, have little influence in Facebook the company.
jimbob45 5y ago
You’re being facetious but I would unironically contribute to a community Cloudflare to escape their tyranny.

mulmen 5y ago

> And what's the recourse when the same forces collude to shut someone or some group out of the hosting platform for wrongthink? I don't believe that "violent overthrow of the democratic process" specifically is a valid political position. I am comfortable discriminating against it. I am also comfortable with private parties exercising their constitutional rights to freedom of expression. > Build your own server farm? Build your own cloudflare? Build your own DNS? Yes, or find someone else to do business with. Or... change your behavior so it is less objectionable to those companies. I consider a free society to be a competitive marketplace for ideas. Some ideas thrive and grow, others wither and die. The first amendment is a mandate for minimal governmental regulation so the forces of competition can evaluate ideas. > How far do we go in allowing tyranny by a loud and powerful minority? We don't allow it at all, that's why these companies are able to set these policies and issue bans. Exercising first amendment rights is not tyranny. > If we can regulate corporations to prevent corporate monopolies, perhaps it's appropriate to implement loose regulations against social monopoly. It's not and whatever the concept of "social monopoly" is can only make sense if there is one party controlling all social expression, which is obviously not the case. You could also call this "social discrimination" and reuse the ideas of protected classes. But political views are not (and IMHO should not) be protected. This would be the equivalent of picking winners in the free market of ideas. Regulating social consensus and private beliefs is itself tyranny. The constitution is clearly designed to prevent exactly that outcome. > Collusion to silence an entire set of viewpoints by unilaterally associating them with a minority of extremists is quite literally oppression. This is not "literally oppression". There is no evidence that there was any collusion, only that violent overthrow of democratic processes is widely objectionable to many corporations and individuals. That many independent organizations came to the same conclusion is evidence that the system is working and that the idea itself has failed in the marketplace of ideas.

concordDance 5y ago
> violent overthrow of the democratic process Trump did not advocate for a violent overthrow as far as I know. > I consider a free society to be a competitive marketplace for ideas That requires those ideas to be heard. If everyone segregates into their own political bubbles there will be no competition of ideas, just endless echo chambers. > It's not and whatever the concept of "social monopoly" is can only make sense if there is one party controlling all social expression, which is obviously not the case Eh? The people controlling the big corporations that control most communication in the English speaking online world are of very particular political leanings. They might not control all expression but they certainly control most of it. > But political views are not (and IMHO should not) be protected. This would be the equivalent of picking winners in the free market of ideas. I don't see how preventing the silencing of some ideas is equivalent to picking winners. I'm not necessarily saying political views should be protected, just disputing the validity of your logic here. > That many independent organizations came to the same conclusion is evidence that the system is working and that the idea itself has failed in the marketplace of ideas. You say "independant", but there are strongly dominant cultures in those organizations and the people admitted to them are from a specific subset of the population. They might be somewhat independant in that Facebook doesn't decide what Twitter does (though I expect there's cross-polination of people moving back and forth between them), but they're both drawing from mostly the same pool of people and ideas. I expect that Trump supporters, for example, have little influence in Facebook the company.

jimbob45 5y ago

You’re being facetious but I would unironically contribute to a community Cloudflare to escape their tyranny.