6 ms·
Thank you, this is something I've said for ages now. If a company has an almost defacto monopoly and stops people from talking about something, it's effectively
by CM30 4y ago
Thank you, this is something I've said for ages now. If a company has an almost defacto monopoly and stops people from talking about something, it's effectively the same as a government doing it. And when about 98% of internet communities are hosted by and controlled by large corporations, the whole 'go elsewhere and start up your own service' thing feels kinda clueless, as if it's deliberately ignoring how powerful network effects are.
It's also clueless because it's extremely difficult to run a business or service online if your views/product/service is despised by a large enough percentage of the population, due to every single layer of the stack being controlled by someone that can and will shut down anyone they disagree with. ISPs, web hosts, anti DDOS providers, software providers, domain name registrars, payment processors... all of them think of themselves as the internet moral police, and will boot customers/clients if enough people scream at them to do so (or in the case of things like porn or gambling, because it's 'convenient').
So running an alternative gets more and more costly and impractical the more controversy you bring, to the point you're probably required to run your own datacentre and networking links if people hate you enough.
That's not true of a real life business or organisation, which gets services provided by utilities and where (assuming they own the building), only the government could boot them out.
- scarface74 4y agoThere is no “monopoly” on getting a computer on the internet where you can express your views. Parlor’s issues for example is not “censorship”. It is a badly run business.
- Jiro 4y agoGood luck building your own payment processor for such a company. Payment processors are regulated and you can't just make your own.
- scarface74 4y agoIf you have anything worth saying and you have “true believers. You can find a way to get around the establishment. That’s the whole idea behind grass root movements. It’s shear laziness or the fact that none of them believe strongly enough to get their words across.
- Grimburger 4y ago> You can find a way to get around the establishment. The Canadian government froze the bank accounts of protesters early this year. How are you meant to "get around the establishment" when you can't even afford to pay your bills and have been essentially made penniless? Worth noting that the same Canadian government is cheering on equivalent protests against covid restrictions in China. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60383385
- jquery 4y ago> protesters It crossed the line into soft terrorism for anyone living in the city. Breaking the law has consequences, even in democracies. I don’t remember any praise from right wingers when a Baltimore Mayor gave some protesters “space to destroy”. Civil disobedience has a place, but the law must also be enforced. If you believe in your cause strongly enough, going to jail is part of the point.
- scarface74 4y agoAnd yet the weed industry does where it is legal in states.
- jiveturkey 4y agoParler as a proper noun i think this is worth correcting
- yucky 4y ago> If a company has an almost defacto monopoly and stops people from talking about something, it's effectively the same as a government doing it. I would take it a step further and say that since the US Government has special relationships with many companies, they effectively become an extension of the government apparatus. In those cases, rather than letting government outsource themselves out from beneath regulation, we extend regulation as it pertains to government work to the companies doing business with the government.
- dTal 4y ago>it's extremely difficult to run a business or service online if your views/product/service is despised by a large enough percentage of the population Well wait a second, is that really censorship? "Censorship" implies to me a small group of powerful and unaccountable people tinkering with the information flow, quite probably in secret. That's not the same thing at all as being hounded out of town because everyone thinks you're a piece of shit.
- bilvar 4y agoOr being burned at the stake because everyone thinks you are a witch.
- dTal 4y agoI'm having trouble discerning your point. Can humans collectively believe harmful things? Of course. But it's a fundamentally different problem than censorship, except insofar as censorship can influence people's beliefs. It's not something you can really legislate against.
- bilvar 4y agoYou juxtaposed the censorship with rational actors that are collectively taking action to protect themselves. I'm juxtaposing with irrational actors that are collectively taking action due to superstition and fear. My point therefore is, why do you think this censorship case is the former and not the latter?
- CM30 4y agoIt's not about what others in general believe, it's the fact the payment processors, ISPs, data centres, etc have an outsized effect on what you can practically do/talk about. The electric, water and gas companies can't just decide to cut off everything they don't like because they dislike their political views/actions, why should the tech equivalents be allowed to?
- joe_g_young 4y ago