4 ms·

>>I'd just prefer if platforms stopped trying to make moral judgments. I feel like we've recently witnessed this idea fail. I think "platform" under the curren

>>I'd just prefer if platforms stopped trying to make moral judgments. I feel like we've recently witnessed this idea fail. I think "platform" under the current convention, is at odds with neutrality. You can't have a platform like Kickstarter without opinions about what can and can't be done on their site. They're not going to allow stuff they disagree with, stuff that will get them in trouble, etc. Neutrality if that kind must be structured in one way or another. Platform plurality, with lots of options. Open protocols, FOSS. Something like ISP neutrality. Platforms are judgemental by default.

wholinator2 4y ago
Sure they can. We've already got a ruleset for what society allows and doesn't, namely the Law. A platform can be neutral up to the point where the law becomes involved, after which it must either capitulate to outside demands or go underground. Any other acquiescence to group instruction is an intentional decision they're making, that they did not have to make. Reddit used to operate like that, everything up to the law was allowed. It's just that doesn't happen nowadays, it's more difficult to say exactly why though. Is it that other companies make it actually not financially survivable to rebuff the mobs? Or is it more a fear of labels and moderate cuts to bottom line. I'm sure they'd lose some money with controversy but would it really destroy them?
- dalbasal 4y ago
  What law, or prospective law, guarantees prevents Kickstarter from booting out users that they don't want? There are certain protections for certain groups (eg religion) but there aren't any laws compelling Kickstarter to allow porn projects. There aren't laws that compel YouTube to allow political content, medical content. There are no legal rights guaranteeing any of this. Half the problem here is that people don't realise where the problem is. The rights established in the past don't take YouTube and Twitter into account. If we want these rights, we'll have to establish them ourselves.
Teever 4y ago
Should a bank be allowed prevent a white supremacist the ability to pay their utilities? To me it isn't about whether or not platforms should do these things but if they should even be able to do them in the first place.
- dalbasal 4y ago
  It's easy to take a single example and demonstrate a principle. That doesn't mean it'll hold water when the next issue comes around. Should a small bank be obliged to provide payment processing for a supremacist website? Do they have the right to use the logo? I'm not falling on one side or another. Simply pointing out what reality has been demonstrating strongly in recent years. These issues will come up. So will other, more commercially salient issues. A service like Kickstarter just won't be neutral. There's no chance. Pressuring Kickstarter won't help. Want neutrality? It needs to be achieved by a different path. I'm worried about AWS, and such. The current state of affairs is such that exclusion, censorship and such are inevitable.
  - LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
    > Should a small bank be obliged [...] Yes. That's the point of becoming a licensed type of entity. If you don't like it, remain private. That lady didn't have to issue gay-marriages certificates, but if she didn't she wasn't going to keep her job at the state marriage office. > A service like Kickstarter just won't be neutral Sure, so they need to remain arms-length from government then. > I'm worried about AWS, and such. The current state of affairs is such that exclusion, censorship and such are inevitable. Yup.

wholinator2 4y ago

Sure they can. We've already got a ruleset for what society allows and doesn't, namely the Law. A platform can be neutral up to the point where the law becomes involved, after which it must either capitulate to outside demands or go underground. Any other acquiescence to group instruction is an intentional decision they're making, that they did not have to make. Reddit used to operate like that, everything up to the law was allowed. It's just that doesn't happen nowadays, it's more difficult to say exactly why though. Is it that other companies make it actually not financially survivable to rebuff the mobs? Or is it more a fear of labels and moderate cuts to bottom line. I'm sure they'd lose some money with controversy but would it really destroy them?

dalbasal 4y ago
What law, or prospective law, guarantees prevents Kickstarter from booting out users that they don't want? There are certain protections for certain groups (eg religion) but there aren't any laws compelling Kickstarter to allow porn projects. There aren't laws that compel YouTube to allow political content, medical content. There are no legal rights guaranteeing any of this. Half the problem here is that people don't realise where the problem is. The rights established in the past don't take YouTube and Twitter into account. If we want these rights, we'll have to establish them ourselves.

Teever 4y ago

Should a bank be allowed prevent a white supremacist the ability to pay their utilities? To me it isn't about whether or not platforms should do these things but if they should even be able to do them in the first place.

dalbasal 4y ago
It's easy to take a single example and demonstrate a principle. That doesn't mean it'll hold water when the next issue comes around. Should a small bank be obliged to provide payment processing for a supremacist website? Do they have the right to use the logo? I'm not falling on one side or another. Simply pointing out what reality has been demonstrating strongly in recent years. These issues will come up. So will other, more commercially salient issues. A service like Kickstarter just won't be neutral. There's no chance. Pressuring Kickstarter won't help. Want neutrality? It needs to be achieved by a different path. I'm worried about AWS, and such. The current state of affairs is such that exclusion, censorship and such are inevitable.
- LawTalkingGuy 4y ago
  > Should a small bank be obliged [...] Yes. That's the point of becoming a licensed type of entity. If you don't like it, remain private. That lady didn't have to issue gay-marriages certificates, but if she didn't she wasn't going to keep her job at the state marriage office. > A service like Kickstarter just won't be neutral Sure, so they need to remain arms-length from government then. > I'm worried about AWS, and such. The current state of affairs is such that exclusion, censorship and such are inevitable. Yup.