4 ms·

This is the side of where younger me might jave started from, but it's not these billionaires fault, there's no privilege they've used other than being early (a

This is the side of where younger me might jave started from, but it's not these billionaires fault, there's no privilege they've used other than being early (and acquiring many many would be competitors), and there's nothing holding Americans back from going elsewhere, to more favorable social network systems. I vaccilate on how bad I think the social networks are. Personally I think the calls for them being political moderators is highly overrated. But most importantly, it is the very laws in question that would allow other networks the right & capability to host their own platforms as they see fit. Social media is in no way the equivalent to the postal service or the telephone. You'd have to be insane to start a new postal competing national & internationally capable postal service or telephone company, the costs are astronomical. Social networks are literally started by random folks with a hobby, such as Mastadon. There is nothing keeping us to the social networks we have. These views that thengovernment has a right to step in & tell them what kind of speech to allow & disallow is an insane & delusional twist, goose-stepping rapidly towards insanity, and the justifications for this begging, to be guaranteed right of reach by the government anywhere & everywhere, is madcap. Absolutely not. This is a sad game of political griping gone off the rails. Media is not neutral, it has biases, and site holders have a right to make sites that express their bias. That it happens to be used by the public is immaterial, so long as the public has a choice to use it or not. I see nothing limiting what networks we travel, for the internet is a series of tubes.

claytongulick 4y ago
> there's nothing holding Americans back from going elsewhere Except for platform providers, such as AWS deplatforming customers, duopoly app stores doing the same, and even core infrastructure providers like cloudflare making editorial decisions. There's a real problem here, and I don't know what the solution is. I believe in the right of private companies to refuse service. However, the Orwellian silencing of dissenting opinions from qualified health care professionals during covid illustrated in the most stark way possible, that the public has an interest in free expression on the internet. I have no idea how that's achieved though, or how you balance the rights of all parties. I guess that's why we hire congress critters - to figure all that out. Whatever they come up with will inevitably make a lot of people unhappy, though.
- rstat1 4y ago
  > Except for platform providers, such as AWS deplatforming customers, duopoly app stores doing the same, and even core infrastructure providers like cloudflare making editorial decisions. I have absolutely 0 issue with people being "deplatformed" for pushing very obvious messages of hate. These providers have rules you must follow or you get banned. Literally no different than any business with a physical presence. The exact same thing would happen outside the internet if some idiot decided to grab a megaphone and take up a prime location in your local town to push their hate. In fact in that instance they might actually ended up being arrested. This really isn't that hard to understand.
  - claytongulick 4y ago
    > This really isn't that hard to understand. Then you aren't thinking critically. It's incredibly complex. Here, simple question then. Define "obvious messages of hate". I know some people who define that as disagreeing with same sex marriage. I know people who define it as supporting Israel. I've also heard CRT and discussion of white privilege described as hateful. But I'm certain you can do it in a way that effectively balances society's interest in free expression with the interest of all parties to be protected from reputational harm, while protecting the rights of private citizens, owners of businesses and taking into consideration hundreds of years of legal precedent and Constitutional protections. So it's easy, right? Super simple. Everyone that's grappling with these issues and balancing limits on free expression must be pretty dumb, I guess. Including the framers and most Supreme Court justices that have been trying to figure it out for hundreds of years [1], I suppose. [1] https://constitutionallawreporter.com/amendment-01/freedom-speech/defamation/ https://constitutionallawreporter.com/amendment-01/freedom-s...
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Oddly enough, AWS didn't invent the internet, and the old ways still work. Mastadon exists, truth social exists, Gab and voat existed, r/conservative exists, the laptop sitting right next to me serving my website exists. There are PLENTY of programmers who have vile opinions, and they will happily take your money to make a scalable and robust controversial opinion platform. Fucks sake, infowars still runs. If people are too lazy or stupid to search out your platform that isn't on youtube or facebook, that's not youtube or facebook's fault. You do not have a right to use the most effective means of communication that is owned, created, and operated by a private entity. The government should not be obligated to provide an industry scale PA system for whatever protest you want.

claytongulick 4y ago

> there's nothing holding Americans back from going elsewhere Except for platform providers, such as AWS deplatforming customers, duopoly app stores doing the same, and even core infrastructure providers like cloudflare making editorial decisions. There's a real problem here, and I don't know what the solution is. I believe in the right of private companies to refuse service. However, the Orwellian silencing of dissenting opinions from qualified health care professionals during covid illustrated in the most stark way possible, that the public has an interest in free expression on the internet. I have no idea how that's achieved though, or how you balance the rights of all parties. I guess that's why we hire congress critters - to figure all that out. Whatever they come up with will inevitably make a lot of people unhappy, though.

rstat1 4y ago
> Except for platform providers, such as AWS deplatforming customers, duopoly app stores doing the same, and even core infrastructure providers like cloudflare making editorial decisions. I have absolutely 0 issue with people being "deplatformed" for pushing very obvious messages of hate. These providers have rules you must follow or you get banned. Literally no different than any business with a physical presence. The exact same thing would happen outside the internet if some idiot decided to grab a megaphone and take up a prime location in your local town to push their hate. In fact in that instance they might actually ended up being arrested. This really isn't that hard to understand.
- claytongulick 4y ago
  > This really isn't that hard to understand. Then you aren't thinking critically. It's incredibly complex. Here, simple question then. Define "obvious messages of hate". I know some people who define that as disagreeing with same sex marriage. I know people who define it as supporting Israel. I've also heard CRT and discussion of white privilege described as hateful. But I'm certain you can do it in a way that effectively balances society's interest in free expression with the interest of all parties to be protected from reputational harm, while protecting the rights of private citizens, owners of businesses and taking into consideration hundreds of years of legal precedent and Constitutional protections. So it's easy, right? Super simple. Everyone that's grappling with these issues and balancing limits on free expression must be pretty dumb, I guess. Including the framers and most Supreme Court justices that have been trying to figure it out for hundreds of years [1], I suppose. [1] https://constitutionallawreporter.com/amendment-01/freedom-speech/defamation/ https://constitutionallawreporter.com/amendment-01/freedom-s...
mrguyorama 4y ago
Oddly enough, AWS didn't invent the internet, and the old ways still work. Mastadon exists, truth social exists, Gab and voat existed, r/conservative exists, the laptop sitting right next to me serving my website exists. There are PLENTY of programmers who have vile opinions, and they will happily take your money to make a scalable and robust controversial opinion platform. Fucks sake, infowars still runs. If people are too lazy or stupid to search out your platform that isn't on youtube or facebook, that's not youtube or facebook's fault. You do not have a right to use the most effective means of communication that is owned, created, and operated by a private entity. The government should not be obligated to provide an industry scale PA system for whatever protest you want.