4 ms·

I don't remember conservatives threatening Twitter to censor "dangerous" views or "misinformation" or telling who to ban.

encryptluks2 4y ago
[flagged]
- Banana699 4y ago
  Because a random bakery shop is totally like a pseudo-monopolistic social media giant that can censor millions arbitarily and at will.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    it's not a monopoly because there are alternatives, and it only has a 10% market share in the US (https://gs.statcounter.com/social-media-stats/all/united-states-of-america https://gs.statcounter.com/social-media-stats/all/united-sta...). The bakery also sets precedent as it did go to the supreme court, and it was used as a rallying cry by politicians on the right.
    - Banana699 4y ago
      So, in simpler words, they are indeed a pseudo-monopolistic (pseudo means apparent, something very close to but not quite there) social media giant that can indeed censor millions (10% of USA's population is 30 millions) arbitarily and at will ? Ok :) And whether a bakery serves your gay wedding or not is perhaps the most petty and inconsequential thing to be upset about. There are thousands upon thousands of bakeries in a large city. You can learn how to bake a cake in a weekend and home-bake your wedding cake yourself, or any one of your wedding guests can do this as a wedding gift. You can go to a no-gays-allowed bakery but simply not tell them you're gay, and take a finished cake from them then write your own name and that of the guy you will marry on it yourself. You can not get cake at all and instead get any of the thousand other types of wedding sweets and food. It's almost like the whole thing is a hilarious non-issue that some people just invented to cry and act like victims about.
      - pb7 4y ago
        Monopoly on what? There are not thousands of bakeries in any city. Many towns might have none, or one. In that regard, the bakery will have an actual monopoly on baked goods to people living there.
        Jensson 4y ago
        The baker is a person with rights as well, you can't force him to make a special order cake for something he disagrees with. You can force him to sell standard cakes, and they offered to sell standard cakes in the case, but the customers wanted to force him to make a designed cake, that would be against the bakers individual rights. Large corporations lacks those individual rights for obvious reasons, so large corporations should be forced to provide services to everyone even though individuals shouldn't always be.
        Banana699 4y ago
        >Monopoly on what? On users. Any network is worth a function of the number of nodes in it (typically a quadratic). Social Media are networks that link humans, and there is a finite number of humans (or, more accurately, internet-connected humans with time to spare) that grows very slowly and inevitably will stagnate. That means a social network is in direct zero-sum competition with all the other networks, and a giant like twitter hurts everybody else by concentrating a signficant proportion of users into a single (aweful) place, destroying competition by the lock-in effects of network dynamics. >There are not thousands of bakeries in any city There are in my city, actually. Dialing the number down to the hundreds or the high tens doesn't signficantly change the validity and implications of the argument either. > In that regard, the bakery will have an actual monopoly on baked goods to people living there. If you can actually prove that in a court, and if you furthermore prove that the complaining party will incur significant costs to themselves if they try to seek another bakery elsewhere (by a resonable legal definition of 'significant'), then you have my full blessing to force people to bake your cake. Until then, comparing an easily-replacable food product with tons of suppliers and publicly-available recipes to a proprietary service supplied by a corporation with thousands of servers, thousands of employees and tens of millions of users is ideologically motivated bullshit.
- kmeisthax 4y ago
  Bigger example: Donald Trump called Net Neutrality "Obamacare for the Internet", back when the bug-bear was Comcast rather than FAANG.
  - TeeMassive 4y ago
    Ending the enforcement of Net Neutrality was not about censoring content or subjects.
    - kmeisthax 4y ago
      The specific worry about Net Neutrality was that ISPs would use their monopoly power to censor specific sources and/or self-preference their own businesses. It's something that should have been expanded to large online platforms rather than being disposed of entirely.
      - TeeMassive 4y ago
        As you said, it was a worry, but ending Net Neutrality about enforcing government censorship was never even an argument being made at all by any sides of the issue.
        kmeisthax 4y ago
        Justice Brett Kavanaugh[0] argued that Net Neutrality specifically violated the 1st Amendment because Comcast should decide what speech they do and don't retransmit. [0] https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/01/judge-argues-net-neutrality-violates-the-free-speech-rights-of-internet-providers/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/01/judge-argues-net-neutralit...
- TeeMassive 4y ago
  You are making a false comparison. They refused to write a particular message, not to not serve the customer a cake.
  - Bud 4y ago
    False. Get your facts straight before misstating established facts in public. The baker in fact refused to make any cake whatsoever for a same-sex wedding. If you are fuzzy on this, watch the interview with the baker himself in this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court...
themitigating 4y ago
They push for censorship of pornographic material, which is less dangerous than misinformation about vaccines.
- TeeMassive 4y ago
  What's the problem with making public pages SFW?
  - themitigating 4y ago
    It's censorship

encryptluks2 4y ago

[flagged]

Banana699 4y ago
Because a random bakery shop is totally like a pseudo-monopolistic social media giant that can censor millions arbitarily and at will.
- themitigating 4y ago
  it's not a monopoly because there are alternatives, and it only has a 10% market share in the US (https://gs.statcounter.com/social-media-stats/all/united-states-of-america https://gs.statcounter.com/social-media-stats/all/united-sta...). The bakery also sets precedent as it did go to the supreme court, and it was used as a rallying cry by politicians on the right.
  - Banana699 4y ago
    So, in simpler words, they are indeed a pseudo-monopolistic (pseudo means apparent, something very close to but not quite there) social media giant that can indeed censor millions (10% of USA's population is 30 millions) arbitarily and at will ? Ok :) And whether a bakery serves your gay wedding or not is perhaps the most petty and inconsequential thing to be upset about. There are thousands upon thousands of bakeries in a large city. You can learn how to bake a cake in a weekend and home-bake your wedding cake yourself, or any one of your wedding guests can do this as a wedding gift. You can go to a no-gays-allowed bakery but simply not tell them you're gay, and take a finished cake from them then write your own name and that of the guy you will marry on it yourself. You can not get cake at all and instead get any of the thousand other types of wedding sweets and food. It's almost like the whole thing is a hilarious non-issue that some people just invented to cry and act like victims about.
    - pb7 4y ago
      Monopoly on what? There are not thousands of bakeries in any city. Many towns might have none, or one. In that regard, the bakery will have an actual monopoly on baked goods to people living there.
      - Jensson 4y ago
        The baker is a person with rights as well, you can't force him to make a special order cake for something he disagrees with. You can force him to sell standard cakes, and they offered to sell standard cakes in the case, but the customers wanted to force him to make a designed cake, that would be against the bakers individual rights. Large corporations lacks those individual rights for obvious reasons, so large corporations should be forced to provide services to everyone even though individuals shouldn't always be.
      - Banana699 4y ago
        >Monopoly on what? On users. Any network is worth a function of the number of nodes in it (typically a quadratic). Social Media are networks that link humans, and there is a finite number of humans (or, more accurately, internet-connected humans with time to spare) that grows very slowly and inevitably will stagnate. That means a social network is in direct zero-sum competition with all the other networks, and a giant like twitter hurts everybody else by concentrating a signficant proportion of users into a single (aweful) place, destroying competition by the lock-in effects of network dynamics. >There are not thousands of bakeries in any city There are in my city, actually. Dialing the number down to the hundreds or the high tens doesn't signficantly change the validity and implications of the argument either. > In that regard, the bakery will have an actual monopoly on baked goods to people living there. If you can actually prove that in a court, and if you furthermore prove that the complaining party will incur significant costs to themselves if they try to seek another bakery elsewhere (by a resonable legal definition of 'significant'), then you have my full blessing to force people to bake your cake. Until then, comparing an easily-replacable food product with tons of suppliers and publicly-available recipes to a proprietary service supplied by a corporation with thousands of servers, thousands of employees and tens of millions of users is ideologically motivated bullshit.
kmeisthax 4y ago
Bigger example: Donald Trump called Net Neutrality "Obamacare for the Internet", back when the bug-bear was Comcast rather than FAANG.
- TeeMassive 4y ago
  Ending the enforcement of Net Neutrality was not about censoring content or subjects.
  - kmeisthax 4y ago
    The specific worry about Net Neutrality was that ISPs would use their monopoly power to censor specific sources and/or self-preference their own businesses. It's something that should have been expanded to large online platforms rather than being disposed of entirely.
    - TeeMassive 4y ago
      As you said, it was a worry, but ending Net Neutrality about enforcing government censorship was never even an argument being made at all by any sides of the issue.
      - kmeisthax 4y ago
        Justice Brett Kavanaugh[0] argued that Net Neutrality specifically violated the 1st Amendment because Comcast should decide what speech they do and don't retransmit. [0] https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/01/judge-argues-net-neutrality-violates-the-free-speech-rights-of-internet-providers/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/01/judge-argues-net-neutralit...
TeeMassive 4y ago
You are making a false comparison. They refused to write a particular message, not to not serve the customer a cake.
- Bud 4y ago
  False. Get your facts straight before misstating established facts in public. The baker in fact refused to make any cake whatsoever for a same-sex wedding. If you are fuzzy on this, watch the interview with the baker himself in this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court...

themitigating 4y ago

They push for censorship of pornographic material, which is less dangerous than misinformation about vaccines.

TeeMassive 4y ago
What's the problem with making public pages SFW?
- themitigating 4y ago
  It's censorship