81–90 of 158 posts
Each time the debate about free speech on social media comes up, people say: "well private platforms, they can censor whatever they want, they are not the government". Of course it only applies to the speech the former do not like: expediency. Here is a thing: social media grew that big because governments created a legal environment in which social media could grow that big. DMCA, safe harbor, the fact that social m…
I'm not surprised. Google cancelled a Ukrainian engineer who had objections to the CRT "fact" that all white people enjoy privilege. Remember that Ukrainians had to suffer Hitler, the Great Famine, Stalin and the Soviet Union. The insidious mind games that the Google nomenklatura plays are described here, by an honest and harmless person. Highly recommended, also the comment section under the video: https://www.youtu…
Do you have a source for this? I am very far from knowledgeable about CRT but AFAIK what you've said there is just an incorrect right-wing talking point in the current anti-CRT fervour.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tbf, commoners in Britain didn't fare much better.
They definitely did. Chattel slavery for example was never legal in the British isles, but was permitted in the colonies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain#Norman_Engl...
I'm also not sure if being a white coal miner in 1870 in Britain would have been much better than the jobs in the colonies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mold,_Flintshire#The_Mold_Riot
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Govnt must stop the erosion of free speech online. That starts with looking again at the wholly inadequate proposals in the Online Safety Bill” why don't they (govt) open a public video site for anyone to upload to, so they don't have to mess with private sites? forcing private entities to host things they dont want to sounds like a huge can of worms
It would make a lot of sense for the UK government to encourage UK-based PeerTube websites (and other federated social media such as Mastodon, PixelFed, Lemmy, etc), and to make sure all UK government content is uploaded on such sites. Then once they have done that, and these sites have lots of users and traction, mandate that Google, Facebook etc also federate using ActivityPub. If they don't, block their sites.
Smash the tech giants into many little pieces and their market power is reduced to the point that it really is private businesses and none of this matters. youtube_v1 blocks your video, touyube_v2 or v3 or whatever will have it because they are separate and not a cartel as that would be illegal. The problem is facbook, google, apple, microsoft, etc etc are all vastly too big. If they need to be monolithic (they don't…
You're supposing that youtube_v1, youtube_v2, and youtube_v3 wouldn't all block you. They would, because all three companies would include a cohort of the same activist employees with the same censorious ideology all pushing to cancel the same people at the same time.
And why wouldn't we? That's the situation we have today. People banned from one major social media platform get banned from all major social media platforms pretty quickly. The state even encourages it.
Splitting tech companies won't do any good for censorship resistance on its own. We need common carrier requirements, not more heads on the censorship hydra.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Badly phrased. I meant inhabitants of all current and ex-colonies. Not just the remaining ones. Although, the talk of blocking another Scottish independence referendum could certainly be used as evidence of holding on to a country against the inhabitants will. You can't know their will if you prevent them from expressing it. Yes, they expressed it 7 years ago but a lot has changed since then, most notably leaving the…
Regarding ex-colonies: Don't we have to eventually "let bygones be bygones"? Otherwise, where do we draw the line? How far do we go back? Those original human perpetrators are long dead. "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin." ~ Deuteronomy 24:16
The video has now been restored: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VidUXZjzNVk Worth a watch. Should we "assume the best" by assuming this was taken down by AI, and without human check? MP says: “This is an outrageous attack on free speech. Throughout the pandemic we've seen blatant attempts by Big Tech to silence opposition voices challenging the conventional wisdom. This episode serves as a further example of the wor…
How is that 'the best'. Only Silicon Valley thinks that is a valid legal excuse for anything. If you can't operate within the law you can't operate.
The US better start regulating their companies or you end up with a trade war due to the whole world including Europe just kicking these vendors out of the market entirely and permanently
"Freedom is the reason the UK has had such a long an illustrious history." I'm sure the inhabitants of the many countries the British invaded and continue to hang on to would disagree. The Online Safety Bill he mentions in his outrage at YouTube taking down his speech is itself an attack on freedoms. He's also part of a political party working to criminalise protests they disagree with.
> I'm sure the inhabitants of the many countries the British invaded and continue to hang on to would disagree. The political systems of every one of those countries are freer today than they were before the British “visited”.
I'm not surprised. Google cancelled a Ukrainian engineer who had objections to the CRT "fact" that all white people enjoy privilege. Remember that Ukrainians had to suffer Hitler, the Great Famine, Stalin and the Soviet Union. The insidious mind games that the Google nomenklatura plays are described here, by an honest and harmless person. Highly recommended, also the comment section under the video: https://www.youtu…
Smash the tech giants into many little pieces and their market power is reduced to the point that it really is private businesses and none of this matters. youtube_v1 blocks your video, touyube_v2 or v3 or whatever will have it because they are separate and not a cartel as that would be illegal. The problem is facbook, google, apple, microsoft, etc etc are all vastly too big. If they need to be monolithic (they don't…
> . youtube_v1 blocks your video, touyube_v2 or v3 or whatever will have it because they are separate and not a cartel as that would be illegal. You're supposing that youtube_v1, youtube_v2, and youtube_v3 wouldn't all block you. They would, because all three companies would include a cohort of the same activist employees with the same censorious ideology all pushing to cancel the same people at the same time. And wh…
Which is collusion and we have remedies for it. It's just a better place to be all around.
>Splitting tech companies won't do any good for censorship resistance on its own
It really will. The power imbalance is redressed so a multitude of normal policy options become available that aren't against a monolithic standard oil.
But sure, please do focus on the many other benefits of smashing _all_ entities with outsized market power into many pieces wherever such outsized market power arises.
edit: 3 is because I was establishing the point and didn't want to list out 50, which is closer to the right number of competing similar sized entities we'd want. If not a thousand.