4 ms·
> It feels like private companies are de facto writing the laws about what's allowed online and in society right now, and that it's almost become a loophole for
by akira2501 3y ago
> It feels like private companies are de facto writing the laws about what's allowed online and in society right now, and that it's almost become a loophole for censoring free speech on a whim.
This is why monopoly power is dangerous as without it you could just move to a more tolerant competitor and be on with your business. The courts almost never consider the "secondary markets" that exist around these behemoths, and how all of our interests and independence are significantly damaged by allowing these monopolies to merge into existence.
Of course, even this feels like the conversation they would _like_ you to have, because the other side I never see considered is what does it take to buy an "indulgence" from these companies? Is it easy? Is it often done? How often are these "scions of social justice" actually just "turning a blind eye?"
- imadierich 3y agoblame the WEF and 16 UN STG
- yrro 3y ago> Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels oh no how _terrible_
- agentgumshoe 3y agoIt's not that bit you need to check, it's the 'how' behind it. 'Inclusive' is also incredibly easy to abuse.
- digging 3y ago> 'Inclusive' is also incredibly easy to abuse. How? Seems to me that, like with corporate accountability, you're either doing it and it's good or you're not doing it but lying and saying you are.
- LawTalkingGuy 3y agoInclusive of who into what? Comcast has an all-women Open Source Program Office, which sounds like a way to include females in engineering. But they define women as "females and males who want to be seen as female" which doesn't help women actually get jobs. The Scottish National Party has sex-quotas to achieve more-equal representation by men and women, but they let men who claim to be women take these seats. Are either actually inclusive? Are they inclusive of women? If you have a daughter, do either of those measures better her life. And yet both actions meet the 'Social' criteria of ESG scores, and serve to boost a company's rankings and thus lower its interest rate on sustainability linked loans.
- agentgumshoe 3y agoNothing about 'affirmative action' is inclusive. People just see it as positive 'because minority.' It can not lead to a positive outcome longer term (even now, where all-female teams are now seen as a positive but all-male teams are a negative, regardless of context). What should happen is across the board equality of opportunity. While making sure the opportunity is truly fair, focus on stamping out prejudice and 'isms. You can't force immediate changes, but you can remove the barriers to equality to let the changes happen.
- agentgumshoe 3y agoWhere are the boundaries of 'inclusive' ?
- account42 3y agoAs written by the ministry of truth.
- tastyfreeze 3y agoMany of those words have different meanings to the in group.
- nec4b 3y agoWhat about this: - Universal suffrage - Proportional representation - Voting for women - Minimum wage - Eight-hour workday ... Not too terrible right? It's copied straight up from the Fascist Manifesto.
- 4bpp 3y agoMonopoly power seems secondary here, with the real problem being that there are sufficiently many people now with a totalitarian impulse to forbid others from engaging in speech they dislike that overrides almost any other principle, and no equally obstinate opposition. I am not engaged in and have no interest in any KF-like activity, but merely wanting to choose an ISP, domain registrar, Mastodon instance or email provider that would not filter them as a matter of principle would expose me to the risk of becoming collateral damage, as the armchair censors pressure the closest amenable nodes to participate in what they see as "cutting out the rot" - excise DNS records, range-ban, defederate from your node and recursively any node that would not participate in defederating you, thus forcing the whole world to pick a side.