3 ms·

>Should we "assume the best" by assuming this was taken down by AI, and without human check? How is that 'the best'. Only Silicon Valley thinks that is a valid

by ralfn 5y ago

>Should we "assume the best" by assuming this was taken down by AI, and without human check? How is that 'the best'. Only Silicon Valley thinks that is a valid legal excuse for anything. If you can't operate within the law you can't operate. The US better start regulating their companies or you end up with a trade war due to the whole world including Europe just kicking these vendors out of the market entirely and permanently

rawTruthHurts 5y ago
>How is that 'the best'. Hence the quotes wrapping sentence.
revolvingocelot 5y ago
>If you can't operate within the law you can't operate That's demonstrably untrue. Look at the rise of Uber. If I started running an unlicensed taxi, they'd come down on me very hard and very quickly, but Uber had the resources to tie up enforcement until public opinion about their VC-subsidized "taxis" prevented any action.
- ralfn 5y ago
  >they'd come down on me very hard and very quickly I can't speak for the rest of the world, but here in the Netherlands, it wouldn't have been the state that would come down 'hard'. (its the other cab drivers, physically assaulting you) As a response to this kind of energy, we actually ended up liberizing our cab market a lot more before Uber came. And when Uber came here there was no good will for the existing established cab companies, because people considered them borderline mobsters.
true_religion 5y ago
Okay. So it wasn’t a mistake. Google like any other media company decided to exercise editorial control and let part A speak while muzzling party B. Now what? There is no consensus of what to do with political speech and media. In some counties only the ruling government gets access. In some counties, only the leading parties have access and all must share time equally. In others, you only get the access that you can buy. In still others, no one gets access except under regulated conditions like a debate. If Google takes a step back from the label of Big Tech and admits that YouTube is just another multinational media company… then what do they lose?
- ralfn 5y ago
  >There is no consensus of what to do with political speech and media. There is though. The general consensus of free societies is that the democratically elected government regulates speech and not the market. The problem is youtube/facbeook/instagram/linked-in perform functions that one would normally classify as 'public space'. Obviously that might need some level of policing, because some speech is criminal (like a threat of violence made to another person). But private companies shouldn't be forced to police. I blame the lack of regulations much more than the for profit companies trying to make a profit (they are legally bound to pursuit profit by their stock holders). The trouble is the US is allergic to do such a thing, and when another country starts regulation the companies of one of their biggest trade ally's... So, please, uncle Sam. Can you please make sure the ToS of facebook and the like, is written by your congress. So that there is direct democratic influence on it? Even Facebook will like a lot better that way, because it actually allows them to stop pretending to be 'the facebook state' and can just go back to 'facebook, the for profit company'.

by ralfn 5y ago

rawTruthHurts 5y ago

>How is that 'the best'. Hence the quotes wrapping sentence.

revolvingocelot 5y ago

>If you can't operate within the law you can't operate That's demonstrably untrue. Look at the rise of Uber. If I started running an unlicensed taxi, they'd come down on me very hard and very quickly, but Uber had the resources to tie up enforcement until public opinion about their VC-subsidized "taxis" prevented any action.

ralfn 5y ago
>they'd come down on me very hard and very quickly I can't speak for the rest of the world, but here in the Netherlands, it wouldn't have been the state that would come down 'hard'. (its the other cab drivers, physically assaulting you) As a response to this kind of energy, we actually ended up liberizing our cab market a lot more before Uber came. And when Uber came here there was no good will for the existing established cab companies, because people considered them borderline mobsters.

true_religion 5y ago

Okay. So it wasn’t a mistake. Google like any other media company decided to exercise editorial control and let part A speak while muzzling party B. Now what? There is no consensus of what to do with political speech and media. In some counties only the ruling government gets access. In some counties, only the leading parties have access and all must share time equally. In others, you only get the access that you can buy. In still others, no one gets access except under regulated conditions like a debate. If Google takes a step back from the label of Big Tech and admits that YouTube is just another multinational media company… then what do they lose?

ralfn 5y ago
>There is no consensus of what to do with political speech and media. There is though. The general consensus of free societies is that the democratically elected government regulates speech and not the market. The problem is youtube/facbeook/instagram/linked-in perform functions that one would normally classify as 'public space'. Obviously that might need some level of policing, because some speech is criminal (like a threat of violence made to another person). But private companies shouldn't be forced to police. I blame the lack of regulations much more than the for profit companies trying to make a profit (they are legally bound to pursuit profit by their stock holders). The trouble is the US is allergic to do such a thing, and when another country starts regulation the companies of one of their biggest trade ally's... So, please, uncle Sam. Can you please make sure the ToS of facebook and the like, is written by your congress. So that there is direct democratic influence on it? Even Facebook will like a lot better that way, because it actually allows them to stop pretending to be 'the facebook state' and can just go back to 'facebook, the for profit company'.