5 ms·

I don't see how you require a private entity to broadcast communications without getting rid of the first amendment. That's where all the whinging is, people w

I don't see how you require a private entity to broadcast communications without getting rid of the first amendment. That's where all the whinging is, people want to require Facebook or Twitter to show whatever stupid thing they said to lots of others, they aren't mad that Facebook blocked their private messages with their mom.

soulofmischief 2y ago
It's a problem they created themselves, so it's moot. They wanted walled gardens and a larger slice of the ad pie. I have zero sympathy for these tech conglomerates who dare to rule public discourse with an iron fist. They have not earned it. They colonized the world wide web and systematically attacked old ways of communication. If the choice is between preserving freedom of speech for a individual and for a corporation, it's not a head scratcher. You favor the individual, almost universally. The "whinging" is completely warranted. Gone are the days when I can easily email a phone number, or use XMPP to talk with Facebook users. And now these companies have the audacity to lean on "you posted it on our platform, so we reserve every right but copyright" and systematically make the internet opaque to search engines in order to muscle some AI money from other companies. They're openly eviscerating the public forum, after intentionally killing off forums by employing sickening addiction-bolstering algorithms and dark UX patterns. We are openly engaged in information warfare with the modern, digital equivalents of the East India Tea Company, and again, I have zero sympathy and will not let them hide behind "muh freedom of speech" when they actively undermine multiple universal human rights as recognized by the US Constitution. They undermine your freedom of speech, your right to due process, right to decline unwarranted search and seizure, and more. We have had this same exact issue swelling with landlords for decades. As citizens increasingly are forced into lifelong rentership instead of home ownership, they are finding their rights slowly eroding. First, it happened with the poor and disenfranchised. A landlord can enter their home at any time, and force all sorts of rules that inhibit freedom of expression and reduce privacy, increasing government reach. The experiment worked, and now we're seeing it manifest in what's left of the middle class. And I feel zero sympathy for landlords and property management groups over this, as well. None. All of these user-hostile companies, these artifacts of late-stage capitalism, they are causing societal harm that may end up being irreparable if something is not done. We made phone lines neutral. Mark Zuckerberg can keep his rights just as we can, but Meta The Company is not a human.

soulofmischief 2y ago

It's a problem they created themselves, so it's moot. They wanted walled gardens and a larger slice of the ad pie. I have zero sympathy for these tech conglomerates who dare to rule public discourse with an iron fist. They have not earned it. They colonized the world wide web and systematically attacked old ways of communication. If the choice is between preserving freedom of speech for a individual and for a corporation, it's not a head scratcher. You favor the individual, almost universally. The "whinging" is completely warranted. Gone are the days when I can easily email a phone number, or use XMPP to talk with Facebook users. And now these companies have the audacity to lean on "you posted it on our platform, so we reserve every right but copyright" and systematically make the internet opaque to search engines in order to muscle some AI money from other companies. They're openly eviscerating the public forum, after intentionally killing off forums by employing sickening addiction-bolstering algorithms and dark UX patterns. We are openly engaged in information warfare with the modern, digital equivalents of the East India Tea Company, and again, I have zero sympathy and will not let them hide behind "muh freedom of speech" when they actively undermine multiple universal human rights as recognized by the US Constitution. They undermine your freedom of speech, your right to due process, right to decline unwarranted search and seizure, and more. We have had this same exact issue swelling with landlords for decades. As citizens increasingly are forced into lifelong rentership instead of home ownership, they are finding their rights slowly eroding. First, it happened with the poor and disenfranchised. A landlord can enter their home at any time, and force all sorts of rules that inhibit freedom of expression and reduce privacy, increasing government reach. The experiment worked, and now we're seeing it manifest in what's left of the middle class. And I feel zero sympathy for landlords and property management groups over this, as well. None. All of these user-hostile companies, these artifacts of late-stage capitalism, they are causing societal harm that may end up being irreparable if something is not done. We made phone lines neutral. Mark Zuckerberg can keep his rights just as we can, but Meta The Company is not a human.