4 ms·

I do wish that people who defend corporations right to do anything they want would come to the defense of this practice.

by ouid 4y ago

horsawlarway 4y ago
They absolutely do - in spades. Claiming that private companies are free to operate as they choose, and if you don't like it - leave. There's a libertarian minded group, especially here on HN, that seems to have completely forgotten that corporations exist at the whim of the public, using public resources and given public permission.
- bobosha 4y ago
  >forgotten that corporations exist at the whim of the public, using public resources and given public permission. Now that seems to the other extreme - your bogeyman business has largely been the source of the income for "public resources". They are - imho - a virtuous cycle.
  - horsawlarway 4y ago
    To be blunt... Employees are a resource provided by "the public" (they are the public). The materials that businesses use are pulled from land whose allocations are supported by the public (through our court systems, our land surveying, our military protections... our general idea of land ownership) The roads people use to shop at those businesses, or that those businesses use to acquire goods are funded by the public. The internet that businesses use to sell things online - funded by the public. The ports/planes that businesses use to import/export goods outside of the community? Funded by the public. I agree that it can absolutely be a virtuous cycle, though. I support the idea of allowing businesses the freedom to innovate and make choices, and I think we allow those rewards to flow back to those owners to incentivize that (literally - we're talking about capitalism now). What I utterly, completely reject - is the idea that these businesses are free-standing entities that are not at all beholden to "we the people" simply because they happen to be private. That's lunacy. The relationship must be symbiotic, and when it's not... regulations should be put in place to force them back to that state. I'm a firm believer that we want to stay in the middle ground between communism and unregulated capitalism. Stray too far either way... and things get ugly and we start killing each other over it.
    - bobosha 4y ago
      >these businesses are free-standing entities that are not at all beholden to "we the people" simply because they happen to be private. strawman fallacy Imo.
      - horsawlarway 4y ago
        I don't really think it is. Many of the folks arguing this is acceptable claim that it's a private company so they can do whatever they'd like. That's clearly not true. Would you care to put forth a different claim that you seem to think is being made, that I'm not addressing?
    - 0xBDB 4y ago
      >Employees are a resource provided by "the public" (they are the public). Corporation is Latin for "body of people". They are the public too. 58 percent of Americans own stock. The largest shareholders (like BlackRock) are largely fiduciaries for pension funds, i.e., the working class. I'll grant that corporate governance in the West largely sucks, but the owners of the body of the people are also the people. >The internet that businesses use to sell things online - funded by the public. The phones that the public sector employees who built the Internet used to communicate? Funded by the private sector (at least, initially. If we're being realistic both phones and the Internet are the product of a mix of public and private funding). This does not give AT&T the right to run the government. Your others are similar, except moreso for resources like roads that the government provides that could at least theoretically be provided by the private sector. Not saying your ideology is wrong; I'm saying it can't be supported with "you didn't build that." Sometimes they didn't get there by themselves, but the public definitely didn't generally get there by itself either.
      - horsawlarway 4y ago
        Glad to see we agree. My whole point is that claiming that we cannot regulate a company because they are "private" is an obvious fallacy - and that's exactly what the folks defending these companies claim... "They are private, so we cannot stop them from arbitrarily locking people out". But that's utter bullshit, and I'm growing very weary of the argument we should give companies the power to arbitrarily deny service with no explanation and no recourse. I don't mind the ban, I mind the lack of proper recourse. > Sometimes they didn't get there by themselves, but the public definitely didn't generally get there by itself either. It's almost like we're a society, and we must balance the needs of all parties. I'm pretty sure that being arbitrarily locked out of a digital system with no recourse is a potential major harm for folks - and I don't think the justification that "it's part of the EULA" is appropriate. At a minimum, I'd expect to see laws demanding the return of any relevant data (the user's property). But we don't even have that. It's time for regulation...
- giantg2 4y ago
  It's also possible that people want there to be changes but these one-off aren't it. Sure, Mark might get his account back, but what about the hundreds or thousands in similar situations who didn't have the good fortune of national press? Mark getting his account back might quell the anger of the public and delay the changes for the rest. The other major option might be that there's no agreement on where the line should be drawn (categorically, objectively). It's easy in a one-off, but codifying can be extremely difficult.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

I do wish that people who defend corporations right to do anything they want would come to the defense of this practice.

by ouid 4y ago

I do wish that people who defend corporations right to do anything they want would come to the defense of this practice.

horsawlarway 4y ago

They absolutely do - in spades. Claiming that private companies are free to operate as they choose, and if you don't like it - leave. There's a libertarian minded group, especially here on HN, that seems to have completely forgotten that corporations exist at the whim of the public, using public resources and given public permission.

bobosha 4y ago
>forgotten that corporations exist at the whim of the public, using public resources and given public permission. Now that seems to the other extreme - your bogeyman business has largely been the source of the income for "public resources". They are - imho - a virtuous cycle.
- horsawlarway 4y ago
  To be blunt... Employees are a resource provided by "the public" (they are the public). The materials that businesses use are pulled from land whose allocations are supported by the public (through our court systems, our land surveying, our military protections... our general idea of land ownership) The roads people use to shop at those businesses, or that those businesses use to acquire goods are funded by the public. The internet that businesses use to sell things online - funded by the public. The ports/planes that businesses use to import/export goods outside of the community? Funded by the public. I agree that it can absolutely be a virtuous cycle, though. I support the idea of allowing businesses the freedom to innovate and make choices, and I think we allow those rewards to flow back to those owners to incentivize that (literally - we're talking about capitalism now). What I utterly, completely reject - is the idea that these businesses are free-standing entities that are not at all beholden to "we the people" simply because they happen to be private. That's lunacy. The relationship must be symbiotic, and when it's not... regulations should be put in place to force them back to that state. I'm a firm believer that we want to stay in the middle ground between communism and unregulated capitalism. Stray too far either way... and things get ugly and we start killing each other over it.
  - bobosha 4y ago
    >these businesses are free-standing entities that are not at all beholden to "we the people" simply because they happen to be private. strawman fallacy Imo.
    - horsawlarway 4y ago
      I don't really think it is. Many of the folks arguing this is acceptable claim that it's a private company so they can do whatever they'd like. That's clearly not true. Would you care to put forth a different claim that you seem to think is being made, that I'm not addressing?
  - 0xBDB 4y ago
    >Employees are a resource provided by "the public" (they are the public). Corporation is Latin for "body of people". They are the public too. 58 percent of Americans own stock. The largest shareholders (like BlackRock) are largely fiduciaries for pension funds, i.e., the working class. I'll grant that corporate governance in the West largely sucks, but the owners of the body of the people are also the people. >The internet that businesses use to sell things online - funded by the public. The phones that the public sector employees who built the Internet used to communicate? Funded by the private sector (at least, initially. If we're being realistic both phones and the Internet are the product of a mix of public and private funding). This does not give AT&T the right to run the government. Your others are similar, except moreso for resources like roads that the government provides that could at least theoretically be provided by the private sector. Not saying your ideology is wrong; I'm saying it can't be supported with "you didn't build that." Sometimes they didn't get there by themselves, but the public definitely didn't generally get there by itself either.
    - horsawlarway 4y ago
      Glad to see we agree. My whole point is that claiming that we cannot regulate a company because they are "private" is an obvious fallacy - and that's exactly what the folks defending these companies claim... "They are private, so we cannot stop them from arbitrarily locking people out". But that's utter bullshit, and I'm growing very weary of the argument we should give companies the power to arbitrarily deny service with no explanation and no recourse. I don't mind the ban, I mind the lack of proper recourse. > Sometimes they didn't get there by themselves, but the public definitely didn't generally get there by itself either. It's almost like we're a society, and we must balance the needs of all parties. I'm pretty sure that being arbitrarily locked out of a digital system with no recourse is a potential major harm for folks - and I don't think the justification that "it's part of the EULA" is appropriate. At a minimum, I'd expect to see laws demanding the return of any relevant data (the user's property). But we don't even have that. It's time for regulation...
giantg2 4y ago
It's also possible that people want there to be changes but these one-off aren't it. Sure, Mark might get his account back, but what about the hundreds or thousands in similar situations who didn't have the good fortune of national press? Mark getting his account back might quell the anger of the public and delay the changes for the rest. The other major option might be that there's no agreement on where the line should be drawn (categorically, objectively). It's easy in a one-off, but codifying can be extremely difficult.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]