41–46 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."
So what big name internet companies aren't a part of this? I notice there's no microsoft, anybody else?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 want you to be able to say whatever you'd like no matter how horrible without fear of government censorship; however, I will not let you use my printing press, blog, etc to do it. There is nothing inconsistent with this.
That sounds too much like the number one cited reason against net neutrality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality#Arguments_ag...
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?
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.
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 disagree. Should the New York Times leave their front door open and allow anyone to walk in off the street and write an un-vetted opinion piece and place it on the front page of tomorrow's paper? That would be ridiculous. 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 ca…
To elaborate, freedom of speech actually does mean the freedom to speak. If you're trying to speak and some asshole is yelling over you, you're being shut down.
> When the government limits your speech, you don't have that option.
More specifically, it's the government's job to protect that speech. When the government doesn't do that, it's nearly as egregious as when it actively censors speech. For instance, if you sent thugs around to threaten your critics, it's the government's job to stop that. There are a lot of angles by which they can justify doing so, and this is a relatively unused one (esp. because it's so abstract), but it's there.
I think that this was the actual goal of legislation like SOPA and PIPA, make the "internet industry" pay up by threatening to threaten their business model. It doesn't seem likely to me that they would really risk seriously damaging a largely US based multi-billion dollar industry, but Google, Facebook and Co. decided to play it safe.