41–50 of 763 posts
I mean, isn't it good when they uniformly apply policies against sharing illicitly obtained private content?
If the laptop became property of the repair shop, how would that be illicitly obtained?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Electrical power shouldn't be privately controlled.
Maybe not, but it is.
To the extent that the regulatory scheme fails, that is a problem when and where it happens. But I've never heard of a power company refusing to provide electricity to a customer due to political disagreements. At least not in the U.S.
To the people constantly saying that twitter is a private company and should be allowed to do whatever they want: Would you support the same idea around electrical power? If the power company providing the power to the office at the NyPost decided that they had a political disagreement with them, would it be okay to just cut off their power? NyPost could just make their own power, of course, by purchasing a generator…
This reminds me of the time I talked to an engineering manager and he told me twitter was the electricity the internet runs on. I thought that was ridiculous, but this is taking it to a new level, where twitter is equivalent to electricity.
To the people constantly saying that twitter is a private company and should be allowed to do whatever they want: Would you support the same idea around electrical power? If the power company providing the power to the office at the NyPost decided that they had a political disagreement with them, would it be okay to just cut off their power? NyPost could just make their own power, of course, by purchasing a generator…
Twitter is not a utility. It is not common infrastructure. The Internet is, and I would not be okay with Internet access being terminated over political disagreements. But individual services? Sure, why not? For those who argue that Twitter is a de facto common platform, well these decisions are moving them away from that role. The more they exercise their own prerogatives in removing content, the more they're no lon…
But that actually doesn't even damage the argument: would it be okay if Google decided that they didn't like NyPost's politics, so they disabled the functionality of all of their nest thermostats? What if they used smart locks on their office: could they just disable the "unlock" function on the doors?
Would anybody be supporting this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Suddenly". You have to work really hard to make sure your timeline includes centre leaning views, never mind right leaning.
"centre leaning" Could you draw a diagram of this?
Generally speaking in America it has moved leftward continually since the American Revolution, which was a left-wing act of protest against a monarchical government (which, on a flatness hierarchy view of the left/right axis, is among the furthest right political systems possible). Each successive major shift in American politics has been a shift towards the left in some way (more egalitarian/equalizing policies, more erosion of authoritative positions on social policies, etc).
Conquest's Second Law is in effect!
At any one time, the "center" is just the point of acceptable shared discourse between the organizations that control the 'poles' at the left and right extents of common discussion; anything past those poles is considered "extreme".
For example, during our lifetimes, discussion of a topic like Gay Marriage has gone from being an extreme leftist social policy you couldn't discuss with people in polite company, to being a hot topic of common debate that even Obama said he would not legalize, to becoming official policy, and then even being accepted by the Republican Party as simply the law of the land and not a subject for discussion any more, pushing the topic as far to the right now as it was to the left 30 years ago. (I hold no judgement on the topic here, merely using it as an example for how the window of what is socially acceptable can shift, and the "center" shifts with it.)
To the people constantly saying that twitter is a private company and should be allowed to do whatever they want: Would you support the same idea around electrical power? If the power company providing the power to the office at the NyPost decided that they had a political disagreement with them, would it be okay to just cut off their power? NyPost could just make their own power, of course, by purchasing a generator…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Electrical power shouldn't be privately controlled.
There's nothing wrong with it being privately controlled. It was privately invented and developed, after all.
The Post publishes a lot of disreputable trash that's outright false or unproven, but more and more often, it seems that they release primary sources of information (especially videos) much earlier than other news outlets will, if the other news outlets do so at all. There have been multiple times when I've seen an insane video of something happening spreading around Twitter or WorldStar or some other "raw video" agg…
Implying that every other major MSM organization doesn't do the same exact garbage and aren't deserving of the same treatment.
Edit: the point is that rules should not favor one MSM corporation over the other. It should be neutral.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't understand how people want to ignore that being pro-"free speech" means private sector corporations can choose which speech they want to associate with too just like an individual can. You have the right to say whatever you want, everyone else has the right to not allow it on their property. There is no first amendment right to compelled listening. We aren't remotely close to having that. There isn't even a s…
I think the issue is that people like me aren't interested in any sort of filtering or curation from Twitter, Facebook, etc. We simply want to see what the people we follow have to say, in linear time order. That was the initial premise of these sites, and it's unfortunate that it is becoming more editorial in nature.
A helluva lot of people joined these networks and got captured by the network effect because we were told or believed that they were open sites, just like the rest of the net. If content (or types of content) came along that folks didn't want? Nerds like us would make and give away (or sell) tools for getting rid of that garbage.
In a big way, what we're going through right now is fraud, plain and simple. It may not meet the legal definition, but to grow and scale using one model and then switch to another once you have a monopoly is a form of bait and switch. There's no way in hell I would have joined either site, and I would have vociferously told my friends and family not to join either, if they had been clear up front that this was what they were planning to do.
NOTE: I am not making a legal claim. I mean fraud in the moral sense. I understand with a zillion corporate lawyers that everything these guys do is wonderfully legal, no matter what the long-term social effects end up being. I am speaking in the vernacular, not legal sense. We were tricked.