3 ms·

I think we can agree to disagree at this point. You believe that corporate power will lead to authoritarianism and the only way to stop that is a stomp on that

I think we can agree to disagree at this point. You believe that corporate power will lead to authoritarianism and the only way to stop that is a stomp on that power at the cost of liberties (because we can't just regulate Google or Twitter; California's registration policy nets up every Mastodon node and every home gardening forum and every still existent BBS). I think the liberties are more important and people should have authority to shape the network, and government intervention hampers that freedom. You see authoritarianism as coming from corporations; I see it as coming from the government. I'm also extremely leery of anything that makes it more difficult for any operator in this network to put up a sign that says "This is not a Nazi bar," even if it at the same time makes it easier for somebody to put up a sign that says "This is not a gay bar." Because I'm not worried about the authoritarian threat posed by unfettered communication in the LGBTQIA community, but I sure am worried about it from the white supremacist community.

mindslight 3y ago
> You see authoritarianism as coming from corporations; I see it as coming from the government. No, I see authoritarianism as coming from both government and corporations. Government is logically equivalent to a monopolistic corporation where your only way to end the contract is by physically moving off from the land it has an ownership interest in. Individual freedom can only exist when both government and corporate power are kept in check. Government power through democracy, separation of powers, and bureaucracy. Corporate power through competition, exit, and regulation. If either one is allowed to run amok to the culmination of its own desires, the end result is centralized control and diminished individual freedom. (And since power coalesces regardless of the type, these imperatives generally feed each other) > You believe that the only way to stop that is a stomp on that power at the cost of liberties No - I do not believe it is correct, and in fact it is quite perverse and grotesque, to characterize corporate control as "liberty". > California's registration policy nets up every Mastodon node and every home gardening forum and every still existent BBS AFAICT this was debunked in the first round of comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37469593 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37469593 . As I've been saying, the key property here is scale, which you seem to be willfully ignored. Please stop standing in tiny, sympathetic, and utterly wrong examples as if they have anything to do with corporate power. Extrapolating about what's right for an individual or small collective to a large corporation/LLC is completely fallacious. > Because I'm not worried about the authoritarian threat posed by unfettered communication in the LGBTQIA community Didn't you kind of mismatch the analogy here? More appropriate would be saying that you're not worried about the threat posed to the LGBTQIA community by unfettered censorship. Which is really an appeal to popularity as how you perceive it currently - transplant Big Tech into the 80's enforcing popular social mores, and things would look much different. Just as how big business happily bends to the whims of China. > I sure am worried about [the authoritarian threat posed by unfettered communication] from the white supremacist community. This is why I feel justified characterizing your argument as cheerleading for authoritarianism. In order to actually stop the authoritarian threat from the white supremacist community, it is not enough to have the popular bars prohibit Nazism. Rather to stop white supremacists organizing, you have to control all avenues of communication. In other words, reinventing de facto governmental power through the private sector where the constitutional embodiments of natural rights don't apply.

mindslight 3y ago

> You see authoritarianism as coming from corporations; I see it as coming from the government. No, I see authoritarianism as coming from both government and corporations. Government is logically equivalent to a monopolistic corporation where your only way to end the contract is by physically moving off from the land it has an ownership interest in. Individual freedom can only exist when both government and corporate power are kept in check. Government power through democracy, separation of powers, and bureaucracy. Corporate power through competition, exit, and regulation. If either one is allowed to run amok to the culmination of its own desires, the end result is centralized control and diminished individual freedom. (And since power coalesces regardless of the type, these imperatives generally feed each other) > You believe that the only way to stop that is a stomp on that power at the cost of liberties No - I do not believe it is correct, and in fact it is quite perverse and grotesque, to characterize corporate control as "liberty". > California's registration policy nets up every Mastodon node and every home gardening forum and every still existent BBS AFAICT this was debunked in the first round of comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37469593 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37469593 . As I've been saying, the key property here is scale, which you seem to be willfully ignored. Please stop standing in tiny, sympathetic, and utterly wrong examples as if they have anything to do with corporate power. Extrapolating about what's right for an individual or small collective to a large corporation/LLC is completely fallacious. > Because I'm not worried about the authoritarian threat posed by unfettered communication in the LGBTQIA community Didn't you kind of mismatch the analogy here? More appropriate would be saying that you're not worried about the threat posed to the LGBTQIA community by unfettered censorship. Which is really an appeal to popularity as how you perceive it currently - transplant Big Tech into the 80's enforcing popular social mores, and things would look much different. Just as how big business happily bends to the whims of China. > I sure am worried about [the authoritarian threat posed by unfettered communication] from the white supremacist community. This is why I feel justified characterizing your argument as cheerleading for authoritarianism. In order to actually stop the authoritarian threat from the white supremacist community, it is not enough to have the popular bars prohibit Nazism. Rather to stop white supremacists organizing, you have to control all avenues of communication. In other words, reinventing de facto governmental power through the private sector where the constitutional embodiments of natural rights don't apply.