Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Twitter Steps Down From the Free Speech Party

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 60 posts

Re: Twitter Steps Down From the Free Speech Party

#51

Post by maaku »

mindcrime wrote: post #48
maaku wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe companies / corporations with enough power to actually challenge the governments of the world isn't such a bad thing after all. Or, perhaps it would be better to say "maybe corporations with enough power to challenge the governments of the world" is, at least, not a universally bad thing. Please review the history of the various "East India" companies. I think you will find it an enlightening read.

> Please review the history of the various "East India" companies. I think you will find it an enlightening read. I have, actually. What's interesting to me is that it really points out the inherent paradox, in that corporations (as we know them today anyway) actually owe their existence to the State. With the East India Company it was a Royal Charter. Note that I'm just playing "Devil's Advocate" here to some extent…

Wow that was so missing the point. I was kinda more hinting towards how the East India Company financed wars of conquest, meddled in local politics, and then neglected their responsibilities to the population and let them starve (e.g. Bengal famine of 1770).

Re: Twitter Steps Down From the Free Speech Party

#52

Post by PavlovsCat »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #27
PavlovsCat wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not poor, just less shiny, and even that mostly at first. That is, if everybody used the stuff regardless of it being less shiny, a lot more development would flow into it, and it might even end up just as shiny. It's a bit of a chicken/egg thing.

Many idealist developers brush off well designed and feature rich artifacts as shiny because they simply just don't get it and never will. So having users use a "less shiny" but more "ideal" artifact isn't going to magically make it better; the developer is still oblivious.

Yeah, but I don't, and I don't see how that follows from what I said either. I was actually more thinking of things like old Opera vs. the current minimalistic trend in browsers - "shiny" to me has nothing to do with features, and in the worst case features even get sacrificed for shinyness. If two things have the same functionality, the more "shiny" one wins, obviously. But that wasn't what I was talking about at all; I have nothing against beauty, but form should follow function, and function should be king.

Re: Twitter Steps Down From the Free Speech Party

#53

Post by bmm6o »

dragonwriter wrote: post #49
mindcrime wrote: post #18

It's funny how a lot of people (especially those of the anti-capitalist / left'ish wing ilk) cite cyberpunk literature in which corporations achieve a level of power approaching - or exceeding - that of Nation States... and decry that hypothetical scenario as a horrible and undesirable thing. But in this case, what we see is a situation where we'd like to see Twitter stand up to various world governments... perhaps e…

> Maybe companies / corporations with enough power to actually challenge the governments of the world isn't such a bad thing after all. Corporations are entities who owe their existence to government and can be terminated at a whim by government. If the government chartering a corporation decides it shouldn't continue to exist, it doesn't exist anymore. This gets obscured a lot by the fact that the same class of peop…

Has this ever happened? I know governments have taken over/privatized businesses, but when was the last time one was just shut down because it presented a threat? I'd think you'd be well into "too big to fail/jail" territory.

Re: Twitter Steps Down From the Free Speech Party

#54

Post by seanmcdirmid »

PavlovsCat wrote: post #52
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many idealist developers brush off well designed and feature rich artifacts as shiny because they simply just don't get it and never will. So having users use a "less shiny" but more "ideal" artifact isn't going to magically make it better; the developer is still oblivious.

Yeah, but I don't, and I don't see how that follows from what I said either. I was actually more thinking of things like old Opera vs. the current minimalistic trend in browsers - "shiny" to me has nothing to do with features, and in the worst case features even get sacrificed for shinyness. If two things have the same functionality, the more "shiny" one wins, obviously. But that wasn't what I was talking about at al…

Unless you can define "the shiny" as anything more than a self-constructed pejorative, your argument lacks substance. What is the shininess? Why is it worthless? Why are users still attracted to it even though its worthless?

Believe it or not, people are actually kind of rational, and pick product A over B for some real reason. Usually B, if feature equivalent or even feature advanced of A, has a hideous UX (command line, really?) and/or visual design (e.g. ugly fake chrome). It might also not be up to date on what is in fashion, but we don't buy unfashionable cars either unless we are going for something retro (part of our culture); consider that "the shiny" at your own peril.

Re: Twitter Steps Down From the Free Speech Party

#55

Post by dragonwriter »

bmm6o wrote: post #53
dragonwriter wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe companies / corporations with enough power to actually challenge the governments of the world isn't such a bad thing after all. Corporations are entities who owe their existence to government and can be terminated at a whim by government. If the government chartering a corporation decides it shouldn't continue to exist, it doesn't exist anymore. This gets obscured a lot by the fact that the same class of peop…

Has this ever happened? I know governments have taken over/privatized businesses, but when was the last time one was just shut down because it presented a threat? I'd think you'd be well into "too big to fail/jail" territory.

> Has this ever happened?

Yes, corporate charters have been revoked for failure to comply with legal requirements. AFAIK, the most recent period of time during which this (sometimes referred to as the "corporate death sentence") was an actively-pursued remedy for violations of the law in the US (though it is one on the books still in, I believe, all states) is the late 19th and early 20th century [1].

[1] Some New York cases discussed starting on p. 250 (of the source document, not the PDF) under "Revocations Based on Misuse of the Corporate Charter for Violations of State Law": http://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1...

Re: Twitter Steps Down From the Free Speech Party

#56

Post by dragonwriter »

mindcrime wrote: post #50
dragonwriter wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe companies / corporations with enough power to actually challenge the governments of the world isn't such a bad thing after all. Corporations are entities who owe their existence to government and can be terminated at a whim by government. If the government chartering a corporation decides it shouldn't continue to exist, it doesn't exist anymore. This gets obscured a lot by the fact that the same class of peop…

Corporations are entities who owe their existence to government and can be terminated at a whim by government. Yeah that's the way it works today and in Real Life. Clearly the cyberpunk scenario is a hypothetical, but it might not be as far-fetched as it seems. Whether it's a Good Idea or not is, obviously a big question.

If corporations were independent of sovereign governments, they would be sovereign governments, not challengers to them.

Re: Twitter Steps Down From the Free Speech Party

#57

Post by mindcrime »

maaku wrote: post #51
mindcrime wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Please review the history of the various "East India" companies. I think you will find it an enlightening read. I have, actually. What's interesting to me is that it really points out the inherent paradox, in that corporations (as we know them today anyway) actually owe their existence to the State. With the East India Company it was a Royal Charter. Note that I'm just playing "Devil's Advocate" here to some extent…

Wow that was so missing the point. I was kinda more hinting towards how the East India Company financed wars of conquest, meddled in local politics, and then neglected their responsibilities to the population and let them starve (e.g. Bengal famine of 1770).

From my point-of-view, that stuff just kinda goes without saying, when talking about the East India Company. So yeah, we all know that big companies / corporations sometimes do Bad Things. But in the context of a discussion about whether or not a corporation should have Nation-State level power, the interesting point in noting that the East India Company (of at least one iteration) was created by Royal Charter and had (essentially) it's own army, etc., is exactly that paradox of how intertwined corporations and States can be.

Again, I'm not arguing for corporations like that. I'm just interested in the discussion vis-a-vis how power can/should/might be organized and controlled.

Re: Twitter Steps Down From the Free Speech Party

#58

Post by mindcrime »

dragonwriter wrote: post #56
mindcrime wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corporations are entities who owe their existence to government and can be terminated at a whim by government. Yeah that's the way it works today and in Real Life. Clearly the cyberpunk scenario is a hypothetical, but it might not be as far-fetched as it seems. Whether it's a Good Idea or not is, obviously a big question.

If corporations were independent of sovereign governments, they would be sovereign governments, not challengers to them.

Maybe, but not necessarily the same kind of sovereign government.

Re: Twitter Steps Down From the Free Speech Party

#59

Post by bmm6o »

dragonwriter wrote: post #55
bmm6o wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has this ever happened? I know governments have taken over/privatized businesses, but when was the last time one was just shut down because it presented a threat? I'd think you'd be well into "too big to fail/jail" territory.

> Has this ever happened? Yes, corporate charters have been revoked for failure to comply with legal requirements. AFAIK, the most recent period of time during which this (sometimes referred to as the "corporate death sentence") was an actively-pursued remedy for violations of the law in the US (though it is one on the books still in, I believe, all states) is the late 19th and early 20th century [1]. [1] Some New Yo…

I don't question that the state can revoke a charter, I meant if it had done so as a result of a perceived threat (rather than as a result of criminal behavior). I'm aware that since the state also defines criminal behavior the line can be blurry, but I think we can agree that the North River Sugar Refining Company did not pose an existential threat to the state of New York.

Re: Twitter Steps Down From the Free Speech Party

#60

Post by known »

mindcrime wrote: post #48
maaku wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe companies / corporations with enough power to actually challenge the governments of the world isn't such a bad thing after all. Or, perhaps it would be better to say "maybe corporations with enough power to challenge the governments of the world" is, at least, not a universally bad thing. Please review the history of the various "East India" companies. I think you will find it an enlightening read.

> Please review the history of the various "East India" companies. I think you will find it an enlightening read. I have, actually. What's interesting to me is that it really points out the inherent paradox, in that corporations (as we know them today anyway) actually owe their existence to the State. With the East India Company it was a Royal Charter. Note that I'm just playing "Devil's Advocate" here to some extent…

Fasting/roaming half-naked in streets are cheap tools/tricks used by Bania Gandhi to humiliate (not defeat) British regime during India's struggle for Independence.
Post reply on HN