5 ms·

I wonder if the "well they're a private company" brigade of mostly-newfound libertarians will ever concede that lots of private companies are heavily regulated

I wonder if the "well they're a private company" brigade of mostly-newfound libertarians will ever concede that lots of private companies are heavily regulated for the good of society. My guess is yes, the second they are on the receiving side of discrimination and unfairness.

roenxi 5y ago
The pure libertarian position here is "they have a right to do this, but it is a bad idea". Twitter is working in one of the purest free-markets imaginable. There is simply no barrier to entry around the market of serving 140 character strings on the internet. If they aren't a good steward of their niche they will be replaced and no government regulation is needed.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  > The pure libertarian position here What do you mean by "here"? That you are a pure libertarian and have this position? > is "they have a right to do this, but it is a bad idea". What does "it's a bad idea" mean? That it is detrimental to twitter, or that it's detrimental to others? > Twitter is working in one of the purest free-markets imaginable. There is simply no barrier to entry around the market of serving 140 character strings on the internet. If they aren't a good steward of their niche they will be replaced and no government regulation is needed. That's not true at all. User base and network effects give huge advantages to incumbents.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    Here as in "here, in this comment thread". If you want to argue that it is a good idea for Twitter to censor jokes in the public square then go ahead. But that argument just is not sustainable. The future will have jokes in it, no matter how humourless Twitter tries to be.
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      Okay so if that is the pure libertarian position here, what does "it's a bad idea" mean exactly? The pure libertarian definition of that is that it is detrimental to twitter. I'm wondering how that is.
      - roenxi 5y ago
        Who do you think is benefiting from banning this tweet? It is completely mundane, harmless and disinteresting. Threatens nobody. Deleting it just riles people up and upset Mr. Johnson to nobody's gain. Compare it with a good moderation system, like HN, where a comment gets greyed out by mass opinion, then everyone moves on. Twitter already has a great mechanism to achieve that called "ignoring the stupid tweet". Banning it was a bad idea. The moderator wasted their time, Mr. Johnson was upset and nobody has come away better off.
        throwawaylinux 5y ago
        I don't know who benefits and I don't purport to know. Maybe he said other things they disliked (e.g., was critical of China or Saudi or Nike) and they were looking for an excuse to ban him. Maybe their moderation system is crap. I don't know. You were the one who said it was a bad idea. I actually don't think you actually know enough to make that statement, but if it such bad things continue on there, why haven't they been out-competed?
        roenxi 5y ago
        Ah, I see. I didn't actually think it was a bad idea, I personally think it is not an important enough tweet to matter. I said the pure libertarian position is that it is a bad idea. Libertarianism prizes freedom of speech and unnecessarily blocking someone from expressing themselves (unless there is a really good reason!) is deviating form the pure position. I've made some arguments but you're right; I can't actually know.
        5y ago
- josephcsible 5y ago
  > There is simply no barrier to entry There's an incredibly high barrier to entry: a powerful network effect.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    A network effect won't protect them when they eventually screw up and start banning their own star content creators. If they haven't already. Their power of moderation can only be exercised if thought leaders agrees they are good moderators. Network effects aren't magic. If an opinion is banned on Twitter then the network that supports it will have to form somewhere else.
    - throwawaylinux 5y ago
      But if they have been and are doing what is already considered a "bad idea" and the market is totally free with no significant barrier to entry, why haven't they long ago been out-competed by others who do not engage in this bad idea behavior?
      - roenxi 5y ago
        Because they've historically been doing a pretty good job? Because most Twitter users really like Twitter's moderation? Competitors are already growing at breakneck pace and we just haven't seen it come through into conventional wisdom? How am I meant to know I'm not an oracle. But displaying tweets is literally the easiest thing that is done on the modern web after displaying a small static site. There is absolutely no libertarian argument that everyone deserves to have their tweet put up with a "Twitter" logo next to it. There is no need at all for regulation here. You can argue that forcing Twitter to host tweets is a good idea, but that is going to be damn tricky to square with libertarianism. If this market is an example of high barriers to entry then there is no such thing as low barriers to entry. I could probably put up a mastodon instance over a weekend, all the technical work has already been done.
        throwawaylinux 5y ago

roenxi 5y ago

The pure libertarian position here is "they have a right to do this, but it is a bad idea". Twitter is working in one of the purest free-markets imaginable. There is simply no barrier to entry around the market of serving 140 character strings on the internet. If they aren't a good steward of their niche they will be replaced and no government regulation is needed.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
> The pure libertarian position here What do you mean by "here"? That you are a pure libertarian and have this position? > is "they have a right to do this, but it is a bad idea". What does "it's a bad idea" mean? That it is detrimental to twitter, or that it's detrimental to others? > Twitter is working in one of the purest free-markets imaginable. There is simply no barrier to entry around the market of serving 140 character strings on the internet. If they aren't a good steward of their niche they will be replaced and no government regulation is needed. That's not true at all. User base and network effects give huge advantages to incumbents.
- roenxi 5y ago
  Here as in "here, in this comment thread". If you want to argue that it is a good idea for Twitter to censor jokes in the public square then go ahead. But that argument just is not sustainable. The future will have jokes in it, no matter how humourless Twitter tries to be.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    Okay so if that is the pure libertarian position here, what does "it's a bad idea" mean exactly? The pure libertarian definition of that is that it is detrimental to twitter. I'm wondering how that is.
    - roenxi 5y ago
      Who do you think is benefiting from banning this tweet? It is completely mundane, harmless and disinteresting. Threatens nobody. Deleting it just riles people up and upset Mr. Johnson to nobody's gain. Compare it with a good moderation system, like HN, where a comment gets greyed out by mass opinion, then everyone moves on. Twitter already has a great mechanism to achieve that called "ignoring the stupid tweet". Banning it was a bad idea. The moderator wasted their time, Mr. Johnson was upset and nobody has come away better off.
      - throwawaylinux 5y ago
        I don't know who benefits and I don't purport to know. Maybe he said other things they disliked (e.g., was critical of China or Saudi or Nike) and they were looking for an excuse to ban him. Maybe their moderation system is crap. I don't know. You were the one who said it was a bad idea. I actually don't think you actually know enough to make that statement, but if it such bad things continue on there, why haven't they been out-competed?
        roenxi 5y ago
        Ah, I see. I didn't actually think it was a bad idea, I personally think it is not an important enough tweet to matter. I said the pure libertarian position is that it is a bad idea. Libertarianism prizes freedom of speech and unnecessarily blocking someone from expressing themselves (unless there is a really good reason!) is deviating form the pure position. I've made some arguments but you're right; I can't actually know.
        5y ago
josephcsible 5y ago
> There is simply no barrier to entry There's an incredibly high barrier to entry: a powerful network effect.
- roenxi 5y ago
  A network effect won't protect them when they eventually screw up and start banning their own star content creators. If they haven't already. Their power of moderation can only be exercised if thought leaders agrees they are good moderators. Network effects aren't magic. If an opinion is banned on Twitter then the network that supports it will have to form somewhere else.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    But if they have been and are doing what is already considered a "bad idea" and the market is totally free with no significant barrier to entry, why haven't they long ago been out-competed by others who do not engage in this bad idea behavior?
    - roenxi 5y ago
      Because they've historically been doing a pretty good job? Because most Twitter users really like Twitter's moderation? Competitors are already growing at breakneck pace and we just haven't seen it come through into conventional wisdom? How am I meant to know I'm not an oracle. But displaying tweets is literally the easiest thing that is done on the modern web after displaying a small static site. There is absolutely no libertarian argument that everyone deserves to have their tweet put up with a "Twitter" logo next to it. There is no need at all for regulation here. You can argue that forcing Twitter to host tweets is a good idea, but that is going to be damn tricky to square with libertarianism. If this market is an example of high barriers to entry then there is no such thing as low barriers to entry. I could probably put up a mastodon instance over a weekend, all the technical work has already been done.
      - throwawaylinux 5y ago