5 ms·

So, you're saying that if I, as the CEO of a private company choose, for example, to host certainn people or certain products on my platform, it's censorship?

• _ea1k 5y ago
  If those choices are made purely because some popular opinions are popular but outside the overton window of your particular political party, then there's a problem.
• slibhb 5y ago
  Whether it's a government or private company has no bearing on whether it's censorship. It has bearing on whether the censorship is illegal. In other words, private companies are allowed to censor but that doesn't magically make it something other than censorship.
  • alxjrvs 5y ago
    no, but it does materially differ from censorship of a state. No one is making Joe Rogan illegal. They are mad Spotify is paying for his nonsense. If Spotify stopped paying him, nothing would materially change for his listeners. Unless Spotify went so far as to ban his Libsyn from their systems, they'd still be able to listen, for free, on Spotify. Even if they did that weird action, people would be able to listen from any number of podcatchers. It's meaningless.
    • darebak 5y ago
      Until private companies decide to remove some individual from payment processing services, and private cloud providers stopped hosting their content and so on. When nearly everything is private, so is censorship.
      • awb 5y ago
        That’s a slippery slope argument. We also break up monopolies, so no one company can control the fate of their consumers, partners, contractors, etc. I’m sure you’ve seen the signs at local shops saying they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. It’s an inconvenience if you get kicked out but you don’t have a right to the provider of your choosing in the US unless you were denied solely based on your status in a “protected class” (race, gender, over 65, etc.). It’s the free market at work and if it’s not working other solutions will pop up if there’s enough demand.
        • darebak 5y ago
          But didn't this slope actually become slippery with that platform (I forgot the name) that was used by the January 6th participants?
          • awb 5y ago
            Parler? Yeah they had a single hosting provider (AWS) and were in two app stores (Apple & Android). I believe the app could still be installed directly on phones through downloading, just not through the app stores. And they had to find a new hosting provider: https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/1/19/bb-parler-moves-to-hosting-service-owned-by-russians-after-ban https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/1/19/bb-parler-moves-... So yeah, they (and their users) were inconvenienced, but they agreed to the terms and conditions of these providers. It's kind of like if you have a restaurant and you violate the terms of your lease (or your lease has no guarantee of future occupancy). The landlord can kick you out, and it'll be a huge inconvenience to move. I think the lesson is that if you want to do something a little edgy, self-host or find an off-shore host with terms and conditions you're comfortable with. Or, if this keep happening enough, new hosting companies will start up that have fewer terms and conditions. But the big providers are going to be the most strict and care the least about your unique situation and your infinitesimal contribution to their bottom line.
  • LightG 5y ago
    What? I kind of get that some censorship can be illegal. But if I privately choose to think that the views of X are idiotic, and kick them away from me because of that, that's my call. That's not censorship, that's me choosing. As someone else implied, the private company can do as it please (within the law), and if getting chucked off the platform is a problem, then there is a monopoly problem to be dealt with, not a censorship problem.