Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse • Hacker News Board

Re: Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse

#261

Post by voidnullnil » Mon, Aug 09, 2021, 7:49 PM UTC

Barrin92 wrote: post #65

Not sure if there's a more eloquent name for these kinds of "throw enough shit and hope some of it sticks" arguments but the article is very confused, from claiming ad hominem attacks are as bad as racism, to ranting about millenials and throwing in WMD's in Iraq for good measure. The actual key issue is somewhere in the middle of that article: > "When tech companies take it upon themselves to arbitrate what is or is…

> No, it isn't. It's a private company determining how and who it conducts business with. Being a 'patrician' of your own property is completely fine and in fact a basic right, and if you don't like Mailchimp's content policies, go to a competitor.

Correct. They can do what they want. However, the title of the article is still correct.

Re: Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse

#262

Post by robertlagrant » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 11:26 AM UTC

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #254

robertlagrant wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He didn't say they're as bad as racism. Inexcusable is not a synonym for bad.

He uses the words "slur", "bigotry and prejudice", "as inexcusable as racism", and "lacks self-awareness and empathy to the same degree as a racist". Does that seem any more reasonable and rational than "as bad as racism"? I could even get behind the basic idea that ad hominem attacks are always bad, except that he's already launched an ad hominem attack against what he assumes are "purple-haired Millennials with nos…

Heh yeah fair point :-) Although even that is to some extent ad hominem; he might be being hypocritical, but that doesn't make the point itself wrong.

Re: Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse

#263

Post by michaelmrose » Tue, Aug 10, 2021, 7:13 PM UTC

refenestrator wrote: post #247

michaelmrose wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insurrection defined: a violent uprising against an authority or government. They violently forced their way into our capital with the idea of intimidating the government to prevent them from handling the lawful business succession insofar as counting and acknowledging the lawfully cast electoral votes. This isn't subjective its the simple literal dictionary definition of the word.

It's an editorialization of the word. Any riot involving a fight with cops would qualify if you stretch it that far.

The peaceful transfer of power based on democratic elections is at the very heart of democracy and they gathered to obstruct it by force in order to substitute their will backed by violence for the will of the people.

They didn't fight with the cops they beat and murdered cops in order to destroy democracy itself.

Re: Big Tech are supposed to be the plumbers, not patricians of internet discourse

#264

Post by tekknik » Wed, Aug 11, 2021, 12:23 AM UTC

myrryr wrote: post #170

john_moscow wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Unless someone explains to me, in plain English, why we ought to abolish the very important freedom of deciding for themselves who and how private entities do business with, I don't want to read any essay length pieces any more about the Gulag archipelago, Orwell or how his friend being cancelled by Mailchimp is like being stuck in Soviet Russia. Because the government is supposed to enforce antitrust laws to make s…

Except that isn't true. You can fire up a BBS from your home machine. Anyone who wants to hear your opinion on things can read it. Freedom of speech is NOT the same as freedom to force people to listen to you.

> You can fire up a BBS from your home machine.

Not really given most ISPs ToS, you’ll have to use a provider. Then what if this provider cuts you off, spin your own DC? What if you can’t get peering? How will you connect your DC?

If you effectively create a town square you shouldn’t be able to ban someone because you don’t like the ideas. How will others know these ideas even exist? (which is the point of censorship)