3 ms·

So you would have the government take time, money, and resources from Google - a private company - and require that they unwillingly publish and monetize videos

So you would have the government take time, money, and resources from Google - a private company - and require that they unwillingly publish and monetize videos that the government said they had to? Is that really a standard you want to set? Am I required now to host your articles on my personal blog?

bt4u 3y ago
[dead]
LudwigNagasena 3y ago
> So you would have the government take time, money, and resources from Google - a private company - and require that they unwillingly publish and monetize videos that the government said they had to? “Private company” is not a magic phrase that makes you unaccountable for your actions. And governments already spend everyone’s time, money and resources to require companies to unwillingly serve protected classes. > Is that really a standard you want to set? Yes. What is the standard you want to set? Do you want to allow monopolies to discriminate you because you are of wrong ethnicity, gender or nationality? Do you want to live in a world where you are unable to connect your house to utilities because you are Indian or a woman? > Am I required now to host your articles on my personal blog? No, nobody cares about your private blog. It is not a monopoly whose market cap is comparable to the combined market cap of all domestic companies in Netherlands.
- d_e_solomon 3y ago
  So I'm struggling to figure out what argument you're making. Youtube b/c they are a "monopoly" - which is not well defined here - must host everyone's garbage - including advertising, penis pills, and porn without discrimination - and also must be forced to do business with rapists, murderers, and anyone else even if it's negative on their brand? In the US we already have a standard that companies cannot refuse to do business or discriminate against some protected classes - but that is actually a rather limited set of circumstances - and based on the wedding cake cases doesn't apply to LGBT people. But accused rapist isn't a protected class the last time I checked.
  - LudwigNagasena 3y ago
    So do you support protections that apply to LGBT people or would you also ridicule them with your penis pills example that “obviously” shows that such protections can’t work? I am completely baffled by your stance and I don’t see any coherence in it. You said it yourself: “in the US we already have a standard that companies cannot refuse to do business or discriminate against some protected classes”. Yet we don’t see a constant stream of porn and penis pills on YouTube. Just say that you want accused rapists to suffer. Why do you come up with those weird roundabout arguments about penis pills?
    - d_e_solomon 3y ago
      My position is pretty clear - there are some protected classes that shouldn't be discriminated against for membership in that class for employment and service. The government shouldn't require big tech companies to carry all posts regardless of content because (1) that's an overstep of the governments ability to regulate speech (2) a taking of resources from a private company to force them to carry someone else's speech (3) impractical because tech companies would not be able to separate spam from political speech. In sum, it's like the government telling newspapers that they are required to print every letter to the editor no matter how many are received and how obscene they are.
      - LudwigNagasena 3y ago
        > My position is pretty clear - there are some protected classes that shouldn't be discriminated against for membership in that class for employment and service. And in case of employment in many countries you can’t be fired unless there is a just cause. The same thing with important services that cannot be denied at will, eg buying drugs at a pharmacy. There are many protections in many countries in many spheres of life that go beyond the color of your skin and your pronouns; and those countries are doing okay. > The government shouldn't require big tech companies to carry all posts regardless of content > In sum, it's like the government telling newspapers that they are required to print every letter to the editor no matter how many are received and how obscene they are. What about the government deciding who should be published on YouTube or in a newspaper? What about the government deciding who should be able to watch or read stuff? Wouldn’t it be scary? Why? Isn’t because the government is a huge powerful monopole? I don’t want my life to be governed by a will of a huge powerful monopoly, even if it’s democratically governed and especially if it’s not even that.

bt4u 3y ago

[dead]

LudwigNagasena 3y ago

> So you would have the government take time, money, and resources from Google - a private company - and require that they unwillingly publish and monetize videos that the government said they had to? “Private company” is not a magic phrase that makes you unaccountable for your actions. And governments already spend everyone’s time, money and resources to require companies to unwillingly serve protected classes. > Is that really a standard you want to set? Yes. What is the standard you want to set? Do you want to allow monopolies to discriminate you because you are of wrong ethnicity, gender or nationality? Do you want to live in a world where you are unable to connect your house to utilities because you are Indian or a woman? > Am I required now to host your articles on my personal blog? No, nobody cares about your private blog. It is not a monopoly whose market cap is comparable to the combined market cap of all domestic companies in Netherlands.

d_e_solomon 3y ago
So I'm struggling to figure out what argument you're making. Youtube b/c they are a "monopoly" - which is not well defined here - must host everyone's garbage - including advertising, penis pills, and porn without discrimination - and also must be forced to do business with rapists, murderers, and anyone else even if it's negative on their brand? In the US we already have a standard that companies cannot refuse to do business or discriminate against some protected classes - but that is actually a rather limited set of circumstances - and based on the wedding cake cases doesn't apply to LGBT people. But accused rapist isn't a protected class the last time I checked.
- LudwigNagasena 3y ago
  So do you support protections that apply to LGBT people or would you also ridicule them with your penis pills example that “obviously” shows that such protections can’t work? I am completely baffled by your stance and I don’t see any coherence in it. You said it yourself: “in the US we already have a standard that companies cannot refuse to do business or discriminate against some protected classes”. Yet we don’t see a constant stream of porn and penis pills on YouTube. Just say that you want accused rapists to suffer. Why do you come up with those weird roundabout arguments about penis pills?
  - d_e_solomon 3y ago
    My position is pretty clear - there are some protected classes that shouldn't be discriminated against for membership in that class for employment and service. The government shouldn't require big tech companies to carry all posts regardless of content because (1) that's an overstep of the governments ability to regulate speech (2) a taking of resources from a private company to force them to carry someone else's speech (3) impractical because tech companies would not be able to separate spam from political speech. In sum, it's like the government telling newspapers that they are required to print every letter to the editor no matter how many are received and how obscene they are.
    - LudwigNagasena 3y ago
      > My position is pretty clear - there are some protected classes that shouldn't be discriminated against for membership in that class for employment and service. And in case of employment in many countries you can’t be fired unless there is a just cause. The same thing with important services that cannot be denied at will, eg buying drugs at a pharmacy. There are many protections in many countries in many spheres of life that go beyond the color of your skin and your pronouns; and those countries are doing okay. > The government shouldn't require big tech companies to carry all posts regardless of content > In sum, it's like the government telling newspapers that they are required to print every letter to the editor no matter how many are received and how obscene they are. What about the government deciding who should be published on YouTube or in a newspaper? What about the government deciding who should be able to watch or read stuff? Wouldn’t it be scary? Why? Isn’t because the government is a huge powerful monopole? I don’t want my life to be governed by a will of a huge powerful monopoly, even if it’s democratically governed and especially if it’s not even that.