31–40 of 46 posts
It's not just Facebook and Google. "The IA’s founding membership consists of Google, Facebook, eBay, Rackspace, Zynga, IAC, TripAdvisor, Yahoo, LinkedIn, Monster Worldwide, salesforce.com, AOL, and Expedia."
It would be refreshing if this industry group took a firm stand against the Great Firewall of China and other national government efforts to censor the Internet. I wonder if that is part of their agenda, as is implied by the main page headings? I tried to look up the privacy platform page, but got a 502 Bad Gateway error just now. They evidently still have both reliability and usability issues to fix on the associati…
>> information should flow freely across national borders, uninhibited by tariffs, regulations and government censorship Funny that they qualify it as government censorship. Because everyone knows that Facebook will censor the crap out of anything they find objectionable. Just a week ago they banned a cartoon of Adam and Eve because it contained nipples. http://tinyurl.com/d5tqnhk
Facebook is a private playground. They are allowed complete discretion over what they allow and don't allow on their private network, and this isn't a problem because you can stop using it at any time.
It is much harder to "stop using" your country of citizenship, which is why many people feel that governments should be held to a much higher standard of openness, accountability and freedom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> information should flow freely across national borders, uninhibited by tariffs, regulations and government censorship Funny that they qualify it as government censorship. Because everyone knows that Facebook will censor the crap out of anything they find objectionable. Just a week ago they banned a cartoon of Adam and Eve because it contained nipples. http://tinyurl.com/d5tqnhk
It isn't a violation of free speech for a private publisher or forum to deny you publishing rights on their platform. Facebook is a private playground. They are allowed complete discretion over what they allow and don't allow on their private network, and this isn't a problem because you can stop using it at any time. It is much harder to "stop using" your country of citizenship, which is why many people feel that go…
edit: again, not sure why people are downvoting without explaining why.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't a violation of free speech for a private publisher or forum to deny you publishing rights on their platform. Facebook is a private playground. They are allowed complete discretion over what they allow and don't allow on their private network, and this isn't a problem because you can stop using it at any time. It is much harder to "stop using" your country of citizenship, which is why many people feel that go…
That's true from a legal standpoint, but it's still a double standard in principles. edit: again, not sure why people are downvoting without explaining why.
There is nothing inconsistent with this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It isn't a violation of free speech for a private publisher or forum to deny you publishing rights on their platform. Facebook is a private playground. They are allowed complete discretion over what they allow and don't allow on their private network, and this isn't a problem because you can stop using it at any time. It is much harder to "stop using" your country of citizenship, which is why many people feel that go…
That's true from a legal standpoint, but it's still a double standard in principles. edit: again, not sure why people are downvoting without explaining why.
I don't see how you could then turn around and claim that NYT supporting freedom of speech is in any way a double standard. They aren't preventing you from creating your own paper, in which you can say whatever you like. When the government limits your speech, you don't have that option.
It would be refreshing if this industry group took a firm stand against the Great Firewall of China and other national government efforts to censor the Internet. I wonder if that is part of their agenda, as is implied by the main page headings? I tried to look up the privacy platform page, but got a 502 Bad Gateway error just now. They evidently still have both reliability and usability issues to fix on the associati…
GFW could censor stuff using QoS discrimination. Un-welcome sites has really bad connection. How do you deal with that?
It would be refreshing if this industry group took a firm stand against the Great Firewall of China and other national government efforts to censor the Internet. I wonder if that is part of their agenda, as is implied by the main page headings? I tried to look up the privacy platform page, but got a 502 Bad Gateway error just now. They evidently still have both reliability and usability issues to fix on the associati…
Same thing with China. Google suffered and still suffers the consequences of going against their government then. They should've allied with other companies first before deciding to pull out of China.
It's not just Facebook and Google. "The IA’s founding membership consists of Google, Facebook, eBay, Rackspace, Zynga, IAC, TripAdvisor, Yahoo, LinkedIn, Monster Worldwide, salesforce.com, AOL, and Expedia."
So what big name internet companies aren't a part of this? I notice there's no microsoft, anybody else?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So what big name internet companies aren't a part of this? I notice there's no microsoft, anybody else?
I guess Microsoft doens't think of itself as an "Internet company", and they've often been on the other side of bills such as SOPA, etc, at least before the backlash.