5 ms·

i disagree with censoring. but i want to pose a question. if i have q WordPress blog on a $5vps, and you post a comment saying my blog post is stupid. its my v

by jayski 5y ago

i disagree with censoring. but i want to pose a question. if i have q WordPress blog on a $5vps, and you post a comment saying my blog post is stupid. its my vps,im paying for it, i can delete the comment if i want right? where do you draw the line? how big exactly does my blog have to get before this is considered big tech censorship?

ls15 5y ago
> where do you draw the line? When you have lobbyists working for you.
- iab 5y ago
  That’s a pretty good line IMO
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
    Huh, yeah, as far as standards for increased regulation go that's a pretty good one.
golemiprague 5y ago
Youtube in my eyes is no different to utilities and it is even more of a monopoly than many other utilities. Your blog is curated because you are the editor and as such it is just like any other publication.
josephcsible 5y ago
You're falling victim to the sand heap fallacy. Sure, some sites would be gray areas, but it's obvious that a personal blog that can run on $5 per month is on one side of the line and YouTube is on the other.
chrisco255 5y ago
You draw the line when you have a monopoly company with a trillion dollar market cap.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  Are they a monopoly? They seem to have plenty of competition.
- fabianhjr 5y ago
  Just create and apply better anti-trust laws and break up the monopolies. (Specially since most platforms got their almost monopolies by creating anti-competitive walled gardens with no inter-operation with other similar platforms a la Fediverse / ActivityPub / Diaspora / Friendica) Or better yet, promote counter-anti-desintermediation: https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Counter-Anti-Disintermediation https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Counter-Anti-Disintermediatio... > The idea of disintermediation was central to the emancipatory visions of the Internet, yet the landscape today is more mediated than ever before. If we are to understand the consequences of an increasingly centralized Internet, we need to start by addressing the root cause of this concentration. Centralization is required to capture profit. Disintermediating platforms were ultimately reintermediated by way of capitalist investors dictating that communications systems be designed to capture profit.
  - orhmeh09 5y ago
    When you say “just do x,” you make it sound so simple. You’re missing out “just do all of this keeping in mind you’re trying to change the law using lawmakers who are personally invested in these companies that have more resources than many nation states.”
    - fabianhjr 5y ago
      I mean in opposition of legislating on what "big tech" specifically can or cannot remove or host on their platforms in comparison to small blogs like the example up thread.
      - orhmeh09 5y ago
        I understand. I agree that yes, that would be similarly fruitless. What is to be done?
shlurpy 5y ago
A lot of "rights" should scale inversely with power, to counteract how their effectiveness scales positively with power. The idea behind universal Democracy is that you should have collective power over everyone who has meaningful authority over you. The power weilded by a government should be kept in check democratically by their constituents. As your blog grows into YouTube, you gain more and more power over people's lives and livelihoods... more political and economic reach with your decisions. That power should thus grow proportionally more limited by mechanisms of user empowerment, rights, and direct control. There isn't a cutoff... there should instead be a sliding scale.
artificialLimbs 5y ago
When the government is in command of what you take down, that's a pretty strong line.
iammisc 5y ago
Given basic human decency yes. However American law requires bakers to bake cakes for events they as an individual disagree with. An old lady florist was individuals fined for refusing to do an event she thought was morally questionable. It seems the only 'people' with rights to conscience are multi billion dollar companies conveniently doing the bidding of the party in power. So that's strange.
pandaman 5y ago
Sure you can. Also, if I post a comment in your blog saying that you are so smart unlike, say, Joe Rogan, who is eating horse de-wormer trying to cure his covid and you don't delete that comment then Joe Rogan may sue you for defamation. Compare with YouTube, where anyone can post a video saying the same and if Joe Rogan came after them, YouTube would claim section 230 protection, insisting it's not selecting content and hence it's not responsible for the user's content. Many people would be fine with YouTube or any other social media company censoring whatever it wants if it also had been liable for the content it leaves uncensored. As of now, it's having the cake (censoring anything they want) and eating it too (not being liable for the content that's left).

by jayski 5y ago

ls15 5y ago

> where do you draw the line? When you have lobbyists working for you.

iab 5y ago
That’s a pretty good line IMO
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  Huh, yeah, as far as standards for increased regulation go that's a pretty good one.

golemiprague 5y ago

Youtube in my eyes is no different to utilities and it is even more of a monopoly than many other utilities. Your blog is curated because you are the editor and as such it is just like any other publication.

josephcsible 5y ago

You're falling victim to the sand heap fallacy. Sure, some sites would be gray areas, but it's obvious that a personal blog that can run on $5 per month is on one side of the line and YouTube is on the other.

chrisco255 5y ago

You draw the line when you have a monopoly company with a trillion dollar market cap.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
Are they a monopoly? They seem to have plenty of competition.
fabianhjr 5y ago
Just create and apply better anti-trust laws and break up the monopolies. (Specially since most platforms got their almost monopolies by creating anti-competitive walled gardens with no inter-operation with other similar platforms a la Fediverse / ActivityPub / Diaspora / Friendica) Or better yet, promote counter-anti-desintermediation: https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Counter-Anti-Disintermediation https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Counter-Anti-Disintermediatio... > The idea of disintermediation was central to the emancipatory visions of the Internet, yet the landscape today is more mediated than ever before. If we are to understand the consequences of an increasingly centralized Internet, we need to start by addressing the root cause of this concentration. Centralization is required to capture profit. Disintermediating platforms were ultimately reintermediated by way of capitalist investors dictating that communications systems be designed to capture profit.
- orhmeh09 5y ago
  When you say “just do x,” you make it sound so simple. You’re missing out “just do all of this keeping in mind you’re trying to change the law using lawmakers who are personally invested in these companies that have more resources than many nation states.”
  - fabianhjr 5y ago
    I mean in opposition of legislating on what "big tech" specifically can or cannot remove or host on their platforms in comparison to small blogs like the example up thread.
    - orhmeh09 5y ago
      I understand. I agree that yes, that would be similarly fruitless. What is to be done?

shlurpy 5y ago

A lot of "rights" should scale inversely with power, to counteract how their effectiveness scales positively with power. The idea behind universal Democracy is that you should have collective power over everyone who has meaningful authority over you. The power weilded by a government should be kept in check democratically by their constituents. As your blog grows into YouTube, you gain more and more power over people's lives and livelihoods... more political and economic reach with your decisions. That power should thus grow proportionally more limited by mechanisms of user empowerment, rights, and direct control. There isn't a cutoff... there should instead be a sliding scale.

artificialLimbs 5y ago

When the government is in command of what you take down, that's a pretty strong line.

iammisc 5y ago

Given basic human decency yes. However American law requires bakers to bake cakes for events they as an individual disagree with. An old lady florist was individuals fined for refusing to do an event she thought was morally questionable. It seems the only 'people' with rights to conscience are multi billion dollar companies conveniently doing the bidding of the party in power. So that's strange.

pandaman 5y ago

Sure you can. Also, if I post a comment in your blog saying that you are so smart unlike, say, Joe Rogan, who is eating horse de-wormer trying to cure his covid and you don't delete that comment then Joe Rogan may sue you for defamation. Compare with YouTube, where anyone can post a video saying the same and if Joe Rogan came after them, YouTube would claim section 230 protection, insisting it's not selecting content and hence it's not responsible for the user's content. Many people would be fine with YouTube or any other social media company censoring whatever it wants if it also had been liable for the content it leaves uncensored. As of now, it's having the cake (censoring anything they want) and eating it too (not being liable for the content that's left).