Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, the worst possible party to limit your free speech is government. The government holds an exclusive monopoly on violence and killing. Almost every government that has obtained power over speech uses their violence monopoly to enforce it. The best party to limit speech that is considered bad is private individuals and companies in their own venues. If I own a comedy theater, I should be able to kick out obno…
A functioning democratic government is accountable to its people, while a private corporation is only accountable to its shareholders. Depending what you believe politically either, none or both could be true. Ultimately free markets can work against societal good just as much as an overly stringent and unaccountable government. Maximally accountable government and a moderately and fairly regulated market seems to be…
EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone
261–270 of 286 posts
Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone
#262It's hard to overlook that the political class is suddenly up in arms about this primarily because they suddenly perceive themselves as being under threat from it. Ordinary individuals and businesses have had to deal with the hegemony of the platforms for a long time and it hasn't really mattered until now. I fear the outcome of this is going to be that it translates into massive regulatory overreach and splitting up…
Agreed that regulatory overreach is on the horizon. Hell, pretty sure it's going to happen (or at least be full steam ahead) in the first 100 days of Biden's presidency. While I don't agree with sweeping regulatory practices and would like to see a thoughtful plan of trying to increase competition instead, I can't blame the political class' position. I find it even fascinating how far reaching this event has been and…
I assume, that he was not allowed to ban people who were simply toxic and posted death threats - all the things that are considered norm in twitter(but other users are able to ban at least some of them to maintain healthy discussion). Also, it is not consistent with how just recently twitter allowed all those death wishes, when it was announced, that Trump had covid.
And I am even more curious about banning of other key Republican politicians - on what grounds? Were they also inciting violence?
Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone
#263I know this is a heated topic but I really don’t understand what the other options are. Having businesses dictate who they want to serve seems like censorship but having the government dictate it seems way worse. I’m not sure how to decouple or balance the freedom of will as a business, freedom of will as a person and the societal mandate of the majority (which is how democracy works? It’s always about the majority v…
Surely there is a middle ground: let businesses operate how they please so long as they follow the law, and have the law require them to act in a way which is considered reasonable. If you’re a business trying to sell something then you are required to be somewhat honest in how you represent the thing, especially if you are selling some kind of food. If you’re a bank then you are required to be fair to a certain exte…
All the leverage is in the margins. Are the people we're kicking off arguing for a change or are they supporting people arguing for violent change?
You want to make that call? Or more honestly would you like _me_ to make that call for you?
Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone
#264Earlier quoted context omitted.
Freedom is not something natural. In 100% freedom your stronger neighbour would have freedom to restrict your freedom and you would have freedom to resist, fail, and be sad about it. So your freedom is dependant of how much the strongest entity around is willing to limit freedom of your neighbors of restricting your freedom. US government showing restraint when major players on the market use their position to restri…
That's why the US government also sets limits on what private companies and their customers can do to restrict each other's freedoms. Under these democratically deliberated laws, Parler has as much freedom to use Twitter & Facebook as you have freedom to do use my lawn. The principle still holds even if every neighbor in your neighborhood hates you and denies you access to their lawn; The scope & scale of their lawn…
It's a general observation that restraint of locally strongest entity doesn't necessarily give you more freedom. It can (and often does) give you less.
And when it comes to Parler my concern was Amazon, not Twitter and Facebook. Why should hosting provider be able to choose whom he provides basic infrastructure? Was Parler illegal content they had to remove by law? Should they cut their electricity and water supply to the creator of Parler too because they don't like their content?
Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone
#265Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed that regulatory overreach is on the horizon. Hell, pretty sure it's going to happen (or at least be full steam ahead) in the first 100 days of Biden's presidency. While I don't agree with sweeping regulatory practices and would like to see a thoughtful plan of trying to increase competition instead, I can't blame the political class' position. I find it even fascinating how far reaching this event has been and…
Agree. It is actually disturbing in that it seems by implication that many politicians are portraying what Trump was doing as legitimate speech - and in doing so they are effectively legitimising it. Whereas anybody I am sure in the big tech decision making on this was treating this as "shouting fire in a theater" exception to speech. I think it will be very harmful if the "legitimate speech" interpretation becomes t…
There's also a question of general ethics when it comes to the conversations in the public sphere. As an example, I believe we can all agree detention, concentration and reeducation camps are evil, anyone who promotes them in a position of power should be made publicly aware of and face the backlash. Let's take literally yesterday Michael Beller, a PBS attorney, was saying children of Republican supporters should be taken from their families and be put in reeducation camps. While PBS is distancing themselves and he resigned, major media is silent on the matter. Hell, Washington Post mentions it, but their super short article focused on the fact this was a supposed sting operation orchestrated by conservatives. It doesn't matter! The dude is videoed saying he's okay with abducting children, reeducation camps and having large swaths of Americans die from Covid because he doesn't agree with their politics. But because it's despicable actions against "the other tribe", it's okay. If a republican said the exact same thing about democrats, word for word, what kind of uproar would there be? Hate to say it, anyone who says that the media and big tech are suppressing their speech, you can't dismiss it at all. At this point, the cat is out of the bag and there is no turning back. To argue against extremism is now harder because of the childish games these companies have played.
In the end, I can appreciate the international political class' response. Their power is threatened. Who wouldn't freak out if they find their voice is easily undermined? Who wouldn't cry foul when their opinion is not equally heard in public discourse, when arbitrary rules are applied to them? Then the opposing opinion has free reign to say and do what they want, along with get artificial inflated publicity. It's just funny now because the politicians are more in line with the populace more than ever, all because the "do no evil" brainwashers of Silicon Valley are showing their true colors. Big tech wasn't the savior to humanity that we were all told the past 20 years. Time to give up that ghost.
Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone
#266Earlier quoted context omitted.
If by "vulnerable to losing", as in it would hurt their economies and put people out of work or hurt livelihoods because the EU in their infinite wisdom decided to excise one or more of them from the continent, it's pretty much name a non-European tech company. Even Dell, HP, IBM, Oracle. Service contracts have to be fulfilled, and making a living off of social media like Instagram, YouTube and Twitch isn't just an A…
>most of the YouTubers I follow aren't even American. They're mostly in Europe or Australia. Ok, if that is the case then why would those content creators want a country locked market place to publish their content on? If I were in the shoes of a European content creator I would publish on the platform with the most reach. I don't have to care about which nation the platform is hosted from.
Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
100%. Germany is so wrong about this, and this is not the way we should go. We Americans needs to grow thicker skin and cherish our free speech more. If we don't, we're going to slip into a world with less liberty. Libel, slander, and "yelling fire" are sufficient limits on free speech. Seeing or hearing people say things you don't like isn't going to kill you. Society already has the tools to shun those who act egre…
>Libel, slander, and "yelling fire" are sufficient limits on free speech. >fine trusted news organizations spreading misinformation How do these two statements go together at all ? The government fining news organizations for reporting what it decides is misinformation seems like a huge overreach even to me, and I'm more on the pro-censorship side.
But I think you're right. That's ridiculous and results in less freedom, and we should strive for 100% free speech across the board.
The way to fix hate is to make sure everyone's rights are protected and strive to meet everyone's needs. Hate arises from fear and discomfort. It's not an easy problem to solve.
Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree, in fact it enhances my impression of the US government in the way that it exercises restraint on its immense natural power. It's quite easy for governments to flex their power and regulate anything and everything. This is common in third world countries and developing societies: edicts are the answer to everything. It is the language of dictators. The US government can absolutely force Twitter and Faceboo…
> exercises restraint on its immense natural power I would have agreed with you provided it was the Government that had to do the banning first and took it's time and exercised restraint. This is different. Big Tech cut off US Government communication lines from the rest of the World. Now we will never know what Trump is thinking except if he does a press conference. We will never know what the White House is doing.…
Trump was the one who chose to keep using Twitter as his main medium of communication. He has a LOT of dedicated presidential communication infrastructure available to him. He is choosing not to use it.
The only thing that reflects badly on the US is trump.
Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't agree with her but her only argument is the government should make these calls rather then private companies. She probably even agrees with what they did just doesn't think anyone except the government should have that power.
Actually, the worst possible party to limit your free speech is government. The government holds an exclusive monopoly on violence and killing. Almost every government that has obtained power over speech uses their violence monopoly to enforce it. The best party to limit speech that is considered bad is private individuals and companies in their own venues. If I own a comedy theater, I should be able to kick out obno…
From my perspective, the real danger is the collaboration of state power and private capital power, because it inevitably leads to the death of any notion of democracy. Whether that happens in free market/social democratic/neoliberal/ordoliberal societies is irrelevant, when the result is a consolidation of the power of private capital and state mandated power. (We used to call this corruption, but the term feels irrelevant.)
I believe a healthy society (under our current paradigms) deeply requires an antagonistic relationship between state power and private capital.
(Just to be clear, I believe these are emergent issues, and I absolutely do not claim to possess any complete truth)
Re: EU Commission: ‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone
#270Earlier quoted context omitted.
Out of curiosity which tech heavy hitters would Europe be vulnerable to losing? I assume they could live without Facebook for a few days.
If by "vulnerable to losing", as in it would hurt their economies and put people out of work or hurt livelihoods because the EU in their infinite wisdom decided to excise one or more of them from the continent, it's pretty much name a non-European tech company. Even Dell, HP, IBM, Oracle. Service contracts have to be fulfilled, and making a living off of social media like Instagram, YouTube and Twitch isn't just an A…
How do you manage a utility that tends towards monopoly, but that is also recognized as an entitlement? The answer is to create a state-run monopoly. What does the Ma Bell for advertising even look like?
Could the Europeans have attracted those monopolies to their shores? What did they do wrong?