12 ms·

> We can all thank China and Cisco with the innovation of The Great Firewall for this So large Western corporations consolidating the majority of the Internet

> We can all thank China and Cisco with the innovation of The Great Firewall for this So large Western corporations consolidating the majority of the Internet use in their hands, and then censoring/controlling it through algorithms is ok. Horrible when governments do any kind of regulation/control. All ok if its done by unaccountable private tyrants for profit...

Kye 4y ago
I read chaostheory's post several times and can't find a way to read it that looks like they're endorsing corporate centralization. In fact, there's no commentary on it at all.
- andirk 4y ago
  They point blame but they don't mention Western hypocritical censorship.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - chaostheory 4y ago
    I’m referring to a Western corporation by name instead of blaming it all on China. What more do you want?
- chaostheory 4y ago
  How am I endorsing corporate centralization when I’m lamenting censorship? Censorship is much easier the more things are centralized
gradstudent 4y ago
I will never understand why private companies curating their platforms is equated with censorship. In China (and elsewhere) a central government curates acceptable speech. If you don't comply you go to jail. In the "West" you might get kicked off a platform, which diminishes your reach, but doesn't extinguish your speech. You can always find another soapbox. Or start your own, as one recent ex-president demonstrated.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- musicale 4y ago
  This is a good point - Youtube/Facebook/Twitter/etc. don't currently have the ability to arrest, try, and imprison you. The bill of rights applies to the US government to prevent it from abusing that power. Though a de facto oligopoly in the social media space means that your reach could be greatly reduced (though not, as you note, eliminated) if you are deplatformed. I imagine that some politicians, entertainers, and businesses could see large effects. Being delisted from Google search could also be an issue for businesses due to Google's search dominance.
- immibis 4y ago
  Because it's censorship. Getting banned off Twitter, and getting executed by firing squad, are both forms of censorship.
  - ThunderSizzle 4y ago
    The difference is there can be 100s of twitters, and they require voluntary usage. There's only one government, and you are required to abide by their rules, so restrictions need to be placed on the government. If twitter and the government work together (e.g. twitter banning people that disagree with the government to get favors or avoid punishments) then that should be treated in a similar lense as government action.
    - WesolyKubeczek 4y ago
      The problem, though, is that there is one ginormous twitter, and the other twitters are pretty much like fleas on an elephantine body. Or it can be Facebook. They deplatform you, and you and your business may as well not exist at all. It becomes interesting if it turns out that there indeed exists a symbiosis between the US government and social media companies wherein the latter are compelled to do censorship laundering on behalf of the former, maybe in exchange of their balls being not so tight in the regulatory vise. After all, it’s not censorship if a private company does it, right? Right? (wink, wink)
chaostheory 4y ago
That’s my point. It’s not ok. This is a trend that Cisco and China started. It’s now snowballed to Western democracies
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
imgabe 4y ago
Please stop pretending that Twitter or Facebook censoring people is the same thing as China. Tech companies are not running concentration camps and don’t have nuclear weapons. They want to sell ads, not dominate the world.
- unity1001 4y ago
  > Please stop pretending that Twitter or Facebook censoring people is the same thing as China If ~2-3 corporations control the speech, and they censor it according to their arbitrary whim and what the US government dictates as 'fake news' as the government wields the hammer of 'inquiries' that could lead to potential gigantic fines, even breakup over their heads, its the exact same thing with China's censorship. The US government does not directly censor - it just 'outsources' the censorship to the 'free market' which has to do what the government wants or they will face inquiries, fines, regulations, break up or even persecution of their executives. The same approach is employed in every other forms of repression and enforcement in US society too: The government does not repress people directly when they use their free speech dangerously. It just gets the police to enforce 'local ordinances' and then the courts make short work of the protesters by imposing fines on them for irrelevant things. Like how Occupy protesters were fined tens of thousands of dollars for 'trespassing' on PUBLIC property. No one's free speech was repressed. Its just that they were hooked up with fines and debt that will have them shut up and keep working like an indentured servant for decades to come in order to be able to pay those fines and debts. > concentration camps China does not have concentration camps. We, in the rest of the world have fed up with the constant smears and lies that the US media directs against the enemy they target. Each of our countries have passed from the same smear machine's target sights at least once in the past 60 years. The very fac that you are able to repeat such a smear on the public Internet without hesitating for even a second tells how strong is the censorship and control of 'free speech' in the US and its satellites. Its not even 20 years after the tale of nonexistent Iraqi WMDS. You people still buy what is sold to you unquestioningly and ironically assert that you have 'free speech'. One does not even need to mention the doublespeak of other countries having 'concentration camps', where in the US, actual slave labor are just called 'the private prison system'. The former 'concentration camp' de-radicalizes actual head-cutting terrorists, teaches them sciences, trades, and reintegrates them to the society as productive members free of charge. The latter just incarcerates people for trivial reasons to use them slave labor for their life. But the former is a 'rights problem'. Not the latter. You just 'rephrase' slavery differently, and its not slavery. > They want to sell ads, not dominate the world. They are appendages of the establishment that has over 800 military bases around the world. Especially around the targeted countries like China. So save that 'not wanting to dominate the world' thing.

Kye 4y ago

I read chaostheory's post several times and can't find a way to read it that looks like they're endorsing corporate centralization. In fact, there's no commentary on it at all.

andirk 4y ago
They point blame but they don't mention Western hypocritical censorship.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- chaostheory 4y ago
  I’m referring to a Western corporation by name instead of blaming it all on China. What more do you want?
chaostheory 4y ago
How am I endorsing corporate centralization when I’m lamenting censorship? Censorship is much easier the more things are centralized

gradstudent 4y ago

I will never understand why private companies curating their platforms is equated with censorship. In China (and elsewhere) a central government curates acceptable speech. If you don't comply you go to jail. In the "West" you might get kicked off a platform, which diminishes your reach, but doesn't extinguish your speech. You can always find another soapbox. Or start your own, as one recent ex-president demonstrated.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
musicale 4y ago
This is a good point - Youtube/Facebook/Twitter/etc. don't currently have the ability to arrest, try, and imprison you. The bill of rights applies to the US government to prevent it from abusing that power. Though a de facto oligopoly in the social media space means that your reach could be greatly reduced (though not, as you note, eliminated) if you are deplatformed. I imagine that some politicians, entertainers, and businesses could see large effects. Being delisted from Google search could also be an issue for businesses due to Google's search dominance.
immibis 4y ago
Because it's censorship. Getting banned off Twitter, and getting executed by firing squad, are both forms of censorship.
- ThunderSizzle 4y ago
  The difference is there can be 100s of twitters, and they require voluntary usage. There's only one government, and you are required to abide by their rules, so restrictions need to be placed on the government. If twitter and the government work together (e.g. twitter banning people that disagree with the government to get favors or avoid punishments) then that should be treated in a similar lense as government action.
  - WesolyKubeczek 4y ago
    The problem, though, is that there is one ginormous twitter, and the other twitters are pretty much like fleas on an elephantine body. Or it can be Facebook. They deplatform you, and you and your business may as well not exist at all. It becomes interesting if it turns out that there indeed exists a symbiosis between the US government and social media companies wherein the latter are compelled to do censorship laundering on behalf of the former, maybe in exchange of their balls being not so tight in the regulatory vise. After all, it’s not censorship if a private company does it, right? Right? (wink, wink)

chaostheory 4y ago

That’s my point. It’s not ok. This is a trend that Cisco and China started. It’s now snowballed to Western democracies

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

imgabe 4y ago

Please stop pretending that Twitter or Facebook censoring people is the same thing as China. Tech companies are not running concentration camps and don’t have nuclear weapons. They want to sell ads, not dominate the world.

unity1001 4y ago
> Please stop pretending that Twitter or Facebook censoring people is the same thing as China If ~2-3 corporations control the speech, and they censor it according to their arbitrary whim and what the US government dictates as 'fake news' as the government wields the hammer of 'inquiries' that could lead to potential gigantic fines, even breakup over their heads, its the exact same thing with China's censorship. The US government does not directly censor - it just 'outsources' the censorship to the 'free market' which has to do what the government wants or they will face inquiries, fines, regulations, break up or even persecution of their executives. The same approach is employed in every other forms of repression and enforcement in US society too: The government does not repress people directly when they use their free speech dangerously. It just gets the police to enforce 'local ordinances' and then the courts make short work of the protesters by imposing fines on them for irrelevant things. Like how Occupy protesters were fined tens of thousands of dollars for 'trespassing' on PUBLIC property. No one's free speech was repressed. Its just that they were hooked up with fines and debt that will have them shut up and keep working like an indentured servant for decades to come in order to be able to pay those fines and debts. > concentration camps China does not have concentration camps. We, in the rest of the world have fed up with the constant smears and lies that the US media directs against the enemy they target. Each of our countries have passed from the same smear machine's target sights at least once in the past 60 years. The very fac that you are able to repeat such a smear on the public Internet without hesitating for even a second tells how strong is the censorship and control of 'free speech' in the US and its satellites. Its not even 20 years after the tale of nonexistent Iraqi WMDS. You people still buy what is sold to you unquestioningly and ironically assert that you have 'free speech'. One does not even need to mention the doublespeak of other countries having 'concentration camps', where in the US, actual slave labor are just called 'the private prison system'. The former 'concentration camp' de-radicalizes actual head-cutting terrorists, teaches them sciences, trades, and reintegrates them to the society as productive members free of charge. The latter just incarcerates people for trivial reasons to use them slave labor for their life. But the former is a 'rights problem'. Not the latter. You just 'rephrase' slavery differently, and its not slavery. > They want to sell ads, not dominate the world. They are appendages of the establishment that has over 800 military bases around the world. Especially around the targeted countries like China. So save that 'not wanting to dominate the world' thing.