3 ms·
> But they allow a government to directly remove content. > This is potentially evil, no matter how trusted a state (thinks) it is. Is this worse than a compa
by oblio 4y ago
> But they allow a government to directly remove content.
> This is potentially evil, no matter how trusted a state (thinks) it is.
Is this worse than a company doing it? Right now there is practically 0 accountability and 0 recourse for corporate internet moderation.
- seydor 4y agoyes it is in fact worse. you can choose another company, you can't choose another government, and it can imprison you
- kaba0 4y agoHow can a business survive for example if it is banned by google? What do you “choose” then? This is just capitalist utopia, capitalism tends toward monopolies/duopolies by itself - it is precisely the governments job to create an order in which fair competition can continue. Having a more or less democratically elected body help with the tyranny of these few megacorps is absolutely essential.
- dsabanin 4y agoInteresting use of the word tyranny. It's defined as cruel and oppressive government or rule.
- slowmovintarget 4y agoIt is also worse in that it creates a framework for special interest groups to act with special status for "detecting" and removing content without due process. Any group with an ideological bent, or an agenda can set themselves up as agents for monitoring "dangerous" content. They may even do that job for the stuff we want actually policed, but they'll also do things like remove all negative mentions of Xi Jinping, or any rumblings against the new Soma product... A company does it on their own service. You go to another. A government sanctioned agent can do it to all services.