5 ms·

> So, you don't believe that big tech companies should be censored by government regulation? Tech companies should obey the laws and regulations that exist in

> So, you don't believe that big tech companies should be censored by government regulation? Tech companies should obey the laws and regulations that exist in the jurisdictions that they operate in. > So, you do believe that big tech companies should be censored by government regulation? Yes. There cant be any large scale service that affects entire society running without democratically legislated regulations. Arguing otherwise is arguing for private fiefdoms that dominate different parts of the society. > Ok, what are you trying to say here? Its hard to interpret what you are asking yourself. I clearly said in my GP post that tech corporations should not exist outside regulation. The parts that you quoted do not contradict. They all say the same thing.

commandlinefan 4y ago
> can not be labeled anything but literal censorship Ah, so you believe that editorial decisions should be replaced with actual totalitarian dictatorial censorship. Gotcha.
- unity1001 4y ago
  How can laws made by democratically elected parliaments be totalitarian. The argument is unintelligible. ... There is absolutely no difference in between private feudal lords dominating large percentages of the media and their editors-in-pay deciding what people see, and an actual totalitarian dictatorship. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/five-reasons-why-we-don-t-have-free-and-independent-press-in-uk-and-what-we-can-do-about/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/five-reason... When one's 6-figure paycheck depends on 'agreeing' with the views of who writes that check, press ends up just like how it is in the US. And Murdoch above is the blatant, honest example. Others are far worse in their censorship - just hire people who are a 'good fit' for your media organization and fire those who are no longer 'a good fit' and voila.

commandlinefan 4y ago

> can not be labeled anything but literal censorship Ah, so you believe that editorial decisions should be replaced with actual totalitarian dictatorial censorship. Gotcha.

unity1001 4y ago
How can laws made by democratically elected parliaments be totalitarian. The argument is unintelligible. ... There is absolutely no difference in between private feudal lords dominating large percentages of the media and their editors-in-pay deciding what people see, and an actual totalitarian dictatorship. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/five-reasons-why-we-don-t-have-free-and-independent-press-in-uk-and-what-we-can-do-about/ https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/five-reason... When one's 6-figure paycheck depends on 'agreeing' with the views of who writes that check, press ends up just like how it is in the US. And Murdoch above is the blatant, honest example. Others are far worse in their censorship - just hire people who are a 'good fit' for your media organization and fire those who are no longer 'a good fit' and voila.