Untitled topic

The payments system (along with the ISPs) need to become a public utility. For ISPs, the least "socialistic" way is for them to operate like Energy Utilities, but IMO, the would be better off being a single provider, fully publicly provided for free.

For payment systems: also easy... everyone has an account at the Federal Reserve offered free as a public service (but with no overdraught or lending services). Payments are processed via SWIFT/ACH for the banks right now and that service should be opened up to all Americans without a bank or Card Services intermediary.

The progressive left has advocated for things like this for decades. Now it is affecting the right, but it's hard to have sympathy as they have been corporate sycophants for decades.

Yes, with caveats.

This whole episode reopens a conversation happening during the whole of the XX century, of how a free society defends itself against actors trying to subvert it.

Trump's mass movement got as far as performing a very botched putsch on Congress to try and stop the ratification of election results it denounced.

This was dangerous. The preceding years showed us that the rate at which people radicalized through social media was far greater than anything you could do to stop it, save from mass censorship it turns out and that still remains to be seen.

I think that society owes a great lot to freedom of expression and indeed the social progress that progressives seek wouldn't have happened without it. Trying to consolidate it over the years closing the barn door to what now is occupying their old place as provocative, non-conforming, "immoral" speech is shortsighted and a detriment to society.

But even with mild forms of deplatforming that already have caused much outrage, it came to this, a small abortive revolution playing out in Washington DC. You may disagree with revolutions or these revolutionaries in particular, but if you don't want one happening you must have the means to stop it from getting there, and you have to find a solution to unbridled social media radicalization.

I wouldn't want as a solution having the Great Powers among Tech's moneyed interests being the ones deciding based on profit, political favor, clout or whatever motivation they may ultimately have.

Absolutely yes.

Morally, violent fascists have no place in society. This isn't a slippery slope. They're not coming for the Communists and Jews next. I have no sympathy for the poor, helpless Nazis being bullied by the big, bad liberals (as if the companies listed are even reliably liberal) when all they want to do is organize an overthrow or two of the US government. The big platforms have been obscenely deferent to the right wing for the past four years; ceasing to do business with them only after actual murder is about as limited a response as you can possibly imagine.

But, you say, companies are supposed to be amoral profit-generating machines? Ok, in that case, let's consider the cost-benefit analysis. Reputation matters. Continuing to do business with violent fascists is bad for reputation. How much money were they bringing in? Probably not much - Parler would have had a hard time getting advertisers, and it's not a system that will work well on a donation/subscription model. Easy decision.

Are we simply concerned in general that a few companies can "silence" certain kinds of speech? First, let's be very clear that if they're going to have that power at all, this is about the best and most restrained possible time for them to use it - relying on the rich and powerful to not abuse their power isn't a long-term strategy, but it's also not productive to whine when they use it in a way that benefits society. But also, it's not completely impossible for Parler to operate. They simply don't get to benefit from the infrastructure that those companies built. Should it be easier to be online and discoverable without those companies cooperating? Maybe, but I'm really hard pressed to imagine how decentralization, discoverability, and human laziness can all coexist. Keep in mind that part of what people like about app stores, for instance, is that they're curated. If Parler has to stay, is there anything beyond literal malware that you think could be removed?

(Full disclosure, I worked for one of those companies until recently.)

> But thats on the people of the nation.

I think there is a very real concern that when the time comes, it will be impossible to organize a revolution against a tyrannical government due to reliance on centralized and regulated social media.

Unreservedly yes, and anyone who votes "unreservedly no" on this poll should be per-banned from this site.