4 ms·

In an interesting way it is also an exploitable facet of small government. If the private sector is susceptible to moral policing then then government downsizin

In an interesting way it is also an exploitable facet of small government. If the private sector is susceptible to moral policing then then government downsizing implies a larger attack surface.

chrischattin 3y ago
I think the implication is government putting pressure (or working with) businesses to censor speech. Smaller government would mean less attack surface in that case. Market forces and competition should help keep speech free because if a private company doesn't allow x group to use their platform, it is likely a competitor will spring up to capture the orphaned market. We see this play out in reality.
- Levitz 3y ago
  >Market forces and competition should help keep speech free because if a private company doesn't allow x group to use their platform, it is likely a competitor will spring up to capture the orphaned market. This doesn't really apply in the same way in social media. Social media platforms organically turn into monopolies. X and Facebook and Reddit and Hackernews and Whatsapp are all social media, sure, but they are not in direct competition. One does not start or stop using Instagram because they use Reddit. Same with Hackernews and X, etc etc. The product is different. When you ban an ideology or a group from a piece of social media, they do run to competitors, but "competitors" which can never penetrate the market because they don't have the userbase, which is the main incentive of social media. So far-right people get banned from Twitter and they run to Gab, but Gab and Twitter aren't really competitors because Twitter can't ever penetrate into Gab's market (they banned that market to begin with) and Gab can't penetrate Twitter's market (because Twitter is the more attractive platform to begin with, having more users) The better product is better because of its userbase. There is no real competition, and as such, no upholding of freedom of speech due to it.
psychlops 3y ago
Are you suggesting that government (big or small) is immune to moral policing and that it's confined to the private sector? Any centralized system is subject to attack, the bigger the better.
- kelseyfrog 3y ago
  I'm suggesting something different than that. I couched it with an if and I should have phrased it a bit differently in retrospect: If the private sector is more susceptible to moral policing than the public sector, then (all things being equal) if public services are transferred to the public sector(ie: smaller government) then the attack area increases. There are two conditions, and one conclusion. If you don't agree that the premises apply, then the argument doesn't really matter and also doesn't apply.

In an interesting way it is also an exploitable facet of small government. If the private sector is susceptible to moral policing then then government downsizing implies a larger attack surface.

chrischattin 3y ago

I think the implication is government putting pressure (or working with) businesses to censor speech. Smaller government would mean less attack surface in that case. Market forces and competition should help keep speech free because if a private company doesn't allow x group to use their platform, it is likely a competitor will spring up to capture the orphaned market. We see this play out in reality.

Levitz 3y ago
>Market forces and competition should help keep speech free because if a private company doesn't allow x group to use their platform, it is likely a competitor will spring up to capture the orphaned market. This doesn't really apply in the same way in social media. Social media platforms organically turn into monopolies. X and Facebook and Reddit and Hackernews and Whatsapp are all social media, sure, but they are not in direct competition. One does not start or stop using Instagram because they use Reddit. Same with Hackernews and X, etc etc. The product is different. When you ban an ideology or a group from a piece of social media, they do run to competitors, but "competitors" which can never penetrate the market because they don't have the userbase, which is the main incentive of social media. So far-right people get banned from Twitter and they run to Gab, but Gab and Twitter aren't really competitors because Twitter can't ever penetrate into Gab's market (they banned that market to begin with) and Gab can't penetrate Twitter's market (because Twitter is the more attractive platform to begin with, having more users) The better product is better because of its userbase. There is no real competition, and as such, no upholding of freedom of speech due to it.

psychlops 3y ago

Are you suggesting that government (big or small) is immune to moral policing and that it's confined to the private sector? Any centralized system is subject to attack, the bigger the better.

kelseyfrog 3y ago
I'm suggesting something different than that. I couched it with an if and I should have phrased it a bit differently in retrospect: If the private sector is more susceptible to moral policing than the public sector, then (all things being equal) if public services are transferred to the public sector(ie: smaller government) then the attack area increases. There are two conditions, and one conclusion. If you don't agree that the premises apply, then the argument doesn't really matter and also doesn't apply.