3 ms·

> So you think it is okay that the government trampled on the free speech rights of rappers Did they though? I mean, to be clear, I'm sure they tried. But both

> So you think it is okay that the government trampled on the free speech rights of rappers Did they though? I mean, to be clear, I'm sure they tried. But both back then and now, the songs were easy to get and is still easy to get. If anything, the whole affair Streisand Effected the hell out of them. I think the story's a good example of a failed attempt at abuse of power because the system of checks and balances worked (it would have failed harder but for a single, powerful, monolithic corporation agreeing with the goal and de-stocking the product from its shelves). > Well the difference is that no corporation has ever stopped me because I “looked suspicious” because I was walking through my own neighborhood that I looked like I didn’t belong No; they merely cut access to your account because you look suspicious, such as having pictures in your private Drive account that their algorithm decided were child pornography, locking up or deleting all data you had hosted by them, with no recourse and no hope of retrieval. Google's within their rights to cut an account, but there's no arguing there's a difference in kind of the experience someone online has if they have a Google account vs. being banned from having one. It's not nearly as bad as government abuse of power; it's really quite bad, and only government has the authority to make it better because the corporations are otherwise unaccountable. > Nor does it have qualified immunity Who backstops the terms of service violation system? When Google demonetizes trans-friendly or trans-inclusive content because their inscrutable TOS and algorithm decide such content is "sexually explicit" (read: offends the sensibilities of schoolboards and advertisers), who has the power to say that's not what that term means? Nobody. I guess with YouTube, we can always take our business to its competitor, doesnt-exist.com. > I have agency to not be under the auspices of any corporation Yes; you have the digital equivalent of the freedom to live in a van down by the river, banished from the nice neighborhoods. Vive Liberte. (To be clear, I don't have concrete answers here. There are no easy answers; it's a complicated problem. But that means the answer also isn't as easy as "Government already has too much power." Perhaps it currently has too much of the wrong kind of power, and not enough of the right kind).

scarface74 4y ago
> Did they though? I mean, to be clear, I'm sure they tried. But both back then and now, the songs were easy to get and is still easy to get. If anything, the whole affair Streisand Effected the hell out of them. In the 1980s how did you produce or distribute music without the internet and computers that could produce music? The police arrested NWA at a concert for rapping “Fuck the police”. > No; they merely cut access to your account because you look suspicious, such as having pictures in your private Drive account that their algorithm decided were child pornography, locking up or deleting all data you had hosted by them, with no recourse and no hope of retrieval. I can and do have multiple backups of my media (Google Drive, iCloud, Amazon Drive, and they are stored using a separate account in AWS S3 Glacier. Are you really comparing losing some pictures and data with losing your freedom or being harassed by a cop? > Yes; you have the digital equivalent of the freedom to live in a van down by the river, banished from the nice neighborhoods. Vive Liberte. Yes guess how hard it is to live a good life after getting arrested because you got on the wrong side of an overzealous Justice system? Or got shot by a trigger happy cop?
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  So we are in agreement that abuse of corporate power and abuse of government power are both bad things to be avoided. I agree with you that the monopoly on violence requires more scrutiny than the soft-power of money. My argument is that certainly doesn't imply no government oversight, nor does it imply we don't have enough government oversight right now. Especially of corporations - your argument appears to be government power is dangerous to use because it can be abused vs. individuals and vs. music acts; can you think of an example where too much government oversight of corporate process has led to improper deprivation of liberties (jail time and the like)? We can acknowledge government power is abused against individuals while still asserting it is the most effective tool against corporate overreach and should be wielded as such.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    > So we are in agreement that abuse of corporate power and abuse of government power are both bad things to be avoided No comparing government power and the harm they can inflict (taking away your freedom) to corporate power (they can take away pictures of little Johny) are night and day. I can live my whole life without dealing with Google. > can you think of an example where too much government oversight of corporate process has led to improper deprivation of liberties (jail time and the like)? In a very realistic scenario that someone said happens in highly regulated industries is that if you ever tell a friend on a company communication channel to call you even if it’s something personal you will be called by lawyers. States are trying to pass laws where social media companies have to verify your identity and your age before you can post. Government is trying to have back doors to all of your chat. Government is arresting people based on their chat messages where they are talking about using pills that facilitate abortion between grown people? Do I need to go on? Is it worth having the government intrude in your life to protect your pictures of little Johny?
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      > if you ever tell a friend on a company communication channel to call you even if it’s something personal you will be called by lawyers. So what? So you have to explain that you didn't violate the auditing laws? That's hardly a huge burden. Don't use corporate assets for personal communication, problem solved. > Government is trying to have back doors to all of your chat And they shouldn't. But the point is: for most users who haven't bothered to set up something like IRC, corporations already do. And you continue to harp on the ways that government can impact personal civil liberties when I am still talking about the ways government can restrict corporations from using unchecked power to make people's lives hell. For the purposes of this discussion, chat logs and abortion are irrelevant. Unless you think the personal right to have an abortion is somehow analogous to the corporate right to, what, Dodge tax law? Use dark money to fund a candidate like DeSantis getting into office? If you're concerned about government overreach and a resulting threat to personal civil liberties, the best defense we have against it is strengthening and enforcing existing corporate auditing law. Because everything you're concerned about regarding civil liberties gets exponentially worse when corporations can buy politicians. Government and corporate power aligning behind a common goal is on the road to fascism. I'm advocating for setting those power bases against each other.

scarface74 4y ago

> Did they though? I mean, to be clear, I'm sure they tried. But both back then and now, the songs were easy to get and is still easy to get. If anything, the whole affair Streisand Effected the hell out of them. In the 1980s how did you produce or distribute music without the internet and computers that could produce music? The police arrested NWA at a concert for rapping “Fuck the police”. > No; they merely cut access to your account because you look suspicious, such as having pictures in your private Drive account that their algorithm decided were child pornography, locking up or deleting all data you had hosted by them, with no recourse and no hope of retrieval. I can and do have multiple backups of my media (Google Drive, iCloud, Amazon Drive, and they are stored using a separate account in AWS S3 Glacier. Are you really comparing losing some pictures and data with losing your freedom or being harassed by a cop? > Yes; you have the digital equivalent of the freedom to live in a van down by the river, banished from the nice neighborhoods. Vive Liberte. Yes guess how hard it is to live a good life after getting arrested because you got on the wrong side of an overzealous Justice system? Or got shot by a trigger happy cop?

shadowgovt 4y ago
So we are in agreement that abuse of corporate power and abuse of government power are both bad things to be avoided. I agree with you that the monopoly on violence requires more scrutiny than the soft-power of money. My argument is that certainly doesn't imply no government oversight, nor does it imply we don't have enough government oversight right now. Especially of corporations - your argument appears to be government power is dangerous to use because it can be abused vs. individuals and vs. music acts; can you think of an example where too much government oversight of corporate process has led to improper deprivation of liberties (jail time and the like)? We can acknowledge government power is abused against individuals while still asserting it is the most effective tool against corporate overreach and should be wielded as such.
- scarface74 4y ago
  > So we are in agreement that abuse of corporate power and abuse of government power are both bad things to be avoided No comparing government power and the harm they can inflict (taking away your freedom) to corporate power (they can take away pictures of little Johny) are night and day. I can live my whole life without dealing with Google. > can you think of an example where too much government oversight of corporate process has led to improper deprivation of liberties (jail time and the like)? In a very realistic scenario that someone said happens in highly regulated industries is that if you ever tell a friend on a company communication channel to call you even if it’s something personal you will be called by lawyers. States are trying to pass laws where social media companies have to verify your identity and your age before you can post. Government is trying to have back doors to all of your chat. Government is arresting people based on their chat messages where they are talking about using pills that facilitate abortion between grown people? Do I need to go on? Is it worth having the government intrude in your life to protect your pictures of little Johny?
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    > if you ever tell a friend on a company communication channel to call you even if it’s something personal you will be called by lawyers. So what? So you have to explain that you didn't violate the auditing laws? That's hardly a huge burden. Don't use corporate assets for personal communication, problem solved. > Government is trying to have back doors to all of your chat And they shouldn't. But the point is: for most users who haven't bothered to set up something like IRC, corporations already do. And you continue to harp on the ways that government can impact personal civil liberties when I am still talking about the ways government can restrict corporations from using unchecked power to make people's lives hell. For the purposes of this discussion, chat logs and abortion are irrelevant. Unless you think the personal right to have an abortion is somehow analogous to the corporate right to, what, Dodge tax law? Use dark money to fund a candidate like DeSantis getting into office? If you're concerned about government overreach and a resulting threat to personal civil liberties, the best defense we have against it is strengthening and enforcing existing corporate auditing law. Because everything you're concerned about regarding civil liberties gets exponentially worse when corporations can buy politicians. Government and corporate power aligning behind a common goal is on the road to fascism. I'm advocating for setting those power bases against each other.