3 ms·

> do you believe that any and all content moderation is an unambiguous good? Yes. Because it's a natural extension of property rights. Do you not believe in pr

> do you believe that any and all content moderation is an unambiguous good? Yes. Because it's a natural extension of property rights. Do you not believe in property rights?

pessimizer 4y ago
I don't believe in natural property rights, because I don't know how to find them in nature. Property rights as assigned by law don't have to be believed in, just observed, because they are enforced. "Natural extensions" of property rights are religious beliefs. I believe they should be protected, but not indulged.
- triceratops 4y ago
  I didn't say anything about "natural" property rights. Property rights as assigned by law let you decide who to allow or disallow access to your property. If the property is open to the general public, there are some additional rules you have to follow. But you're free to ban activities from your property.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    If we aren't discussing natural property rights, we aren't discussing anything. Of course there are property laws. They can be whatever we decide they are.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  All rights are legal rights. No one has any rights without a legal system.
rufus_foreman 4y ago
Do you believe the electric company should be able to choose not to provide you with electricity if you express an opinion with which the owners of that company disagree? That would be an example of the owners of the electric company asserting their property rights. Might there be situations where property rights need to be weighed against other considerations?
- epakai 4y ago
  We have established norms for these situations. Utilities are one special case. Common carriers another. Social media is neither of these. I don't rely on it to sustain my life, nor access government services. If we're going to regulate social media it would be more akin to newspapers or broadcasting.
  - rufus_foreman 4y ago
    >> Social media is neither of these You are committing the fallacy of begging the question. Whether social media is a common carrier is precisely the matter up for debate. >> We have established norms for these situations There is a process by which norms are established and what is going on now is part of that process.
- triceratops 4y ago
  This debate is pretty old already. The analogue to electric companies is ISPs, not social media companies. Social media companies are analogous to appliance companies. GE or Whirlpool are within their rights to stop selling you fridges because they disagree with you politically. ISPs aren't treated as common carriers at the moment, and these laws were enacted by the same political party that treats this as a free speech issue. So I have trouble taking seriously any politician who supports such laws. They're hypocrites; pure and simple.

> do you believe that any and all content moderation is an unambiguous good? Yes. Because it's a natural extension of property rights. Do you not believe in property rights?

pessimizer 4y ago

I don't believe in natural property rights, because I don't know how to find them in nature. Property rights as assigned by law don't have to be believed in, just observed, because they are enforced. "Natural extensions" of property rights are religious beliefs. I believe they should be protected, but not indulged.

triceratops 4y ago
I didn't say anything about "natural" property rights. Property rights as assigned by law let you decide who to allow or disallow access to your property. If the property is open to the general public, there are some additional rules you have to follow. But you're free to ban activities from your property.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  If we aren't discussing natural property rights, we aren't discussing anything. Of course there are property laws. They can be whatever we decide they are.
colinmhayes 4y ago
All rights are legal rights. No one has any rights without a legal system.

rufus_foreman 4y ago

Do you believe the electric company should be able to choose not to provide you with electricity if you express an opinion with which the owners of that company disagree? That would be an example of the owners of the electric company asserting their property rights. Might there be situations where property rights need to be weighed against other considerations?

epakai 4y ago
We have established norms for these situations. Utilities are one special case. Common carriers another. Social media is neither of these. I don't rely on it to sustain my life, nor access government services. If we're going to regulate social media it would be more akin to newspapers or broadcasting.
- rufus_foreman 4y ago
  >> Social media is neither of these You are committing the fallacy of begging the question. Whether social media is a common carrier is precisely the matter up for debate. >> We have established norms for these situations There is a process by which norms are established and what is going on now is part of that process.
triceratops 4y ago
This debate is pretty old already. The analogue to electric companies is ISPs, not social media companies. Social media companies are analogous to appliance companies. GE or Whirlpool are within their rights to stop selling you fridges because they disagree with you politically. ISPs aren't treated as common carriers at the moment, and these laws were enacted by the same political party that treats this as a free speech issue. So I have trouble taking seriously any politician who supports such laws. They're hypocrites; pure and simple.