3 ms·

While I agree with some of what you said about the free software community, I think you're ignoring GP's larger point, and somewhat derailing the conversation b

While I agree with some of what you said about the free software community, I think you're ignoring GP's larger point, and somewhat derailing the conversation by focusing too much on one sentence of a long comment. Perhaps you could post a substantive rebuttal to the heart of GP's comment: > they remain willfully blind to other threats ... > The problem is that would give users actual power and autonomy. But what the authors really want is for Google and other corporations to keep acting as internet police, but only enforcing rules they agree with, and not any others. In other words, what about broader issues with censorship, surveillance, and corporate control of the Internet outside the context of abortion?

thallamus 4y ago
I didn’t rebut either of your quotes because they’re both ascribing intent to the actions of others with very limited information. I’d be rebutting their interpretation of events, not the events (and I’d also be doing it with the same limited information). I also think the broader point is more important.
- leereeves 4y ago
  Fair enough, those claims could use some evidence. The author of this article once wrote: > As more of the Internet permeated our lives, so has the expectation that tech companies share a responsibility for content that’s akin to food companies’ responsibility for public health. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/24/online-moderation-tech-stack/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/24/online-... It seems fair to characterize that as believing that "Google and other corporations [should] keep acting as internet police".
  - nobodyandproud 4y ago
    It could also mean that they share responsibility because of their lobbying efforts. Laws could have been enacted a long time ago and surveillance expectations could have remained strongly on individual privacy instead of fighting like: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49808208 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49808208 Or https://thehill.com/policy/technology/407528-fight-looms-over-national-privacy-law/ https://thehill.com/policy/technology/407528-fight-looms-ove...

thallamus 4y ago

I didn’t rebut either of your quotes because they’re both ascribing intent to the actions of others with very limited information. I’d be rebutting their interpretation of events, not the events (and I’d also be doing it with the same limited information). I also think the broader point is more important.

leereeves 4y ago
Fair enough, those claims could use some evidence. The author of this article once wrote: > As more of the Internet permeated our lives, so has the expectation that tech companies share a responsibility for content that’s akin to food companies’ responsibility for public health. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/24/online-moderation-tech-stack/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/03/24/online-... It seems fair to characterize that as believing that "Google and other corporations [should] keep acting as internet police".
- nobodyandproud 4y ago
  It could also mean that they share responsibility because of their lobbying efforts. Laws could have been enacted a long time ago and surveillance expectations could have remained strongly on individual privacy instead of fighting like: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49808208 https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49808208 Or https://thehill.com/policy/technology/407528-fight-looms-over-national-privacy-law/ https://thehill.com/policy/technology/407528-fight-looms-ove...