News The World is upside down.....

[sdifox]

As much as I would love to make my very own Facebook with beer and strippers, I'm not sure if I can convince all of my friends and co-workers to use it. I'm a sysadmin, not a social influencer.

Welp, you got a bigger problem then getting banned by FB and Twitter then.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Apparently both Germany and Poland don't understand the first amendment well. Not surprised about Poland, it's a backwards conservative place, but Merkel? Though if you read her comments she does seem to imply the state should bear that responsibility, perhaps hinting it would have been governments job to censor the evil that is Trump.

Good thing they don't have a "first amendment" lol

Also the discussion and argument itself has little to do with the first amendment.. Anyhow, once upon a time there were plenty of services that weren't consider essential until more recently. Now they are public utilities such as phones, and internet service providers.

 

[MrSquished]

Good thing they don't have a "first amendment" lol

Also the discussion and argument itself has little to do with the first amendment.. Anyhow, once upon a time there were plenty of services that weren't consider essential until more recently. Now they are public utilities such as phones, and internet service providers.

Internet service providers are not considered public utilities yet in this country. Neither are wireless phones. Just landline phones are, whether on copper or data.

The Dems wanted to make internet providers public utilities but that hasn't happened yet. Obama's FCC implemented net neutrality though, on a 3-2 partisan vote, which was a big step on the way to making ISPs a public utility, but Trump's FCC overturned that.

Of course they did.

 

[nakedfrog]

What's the argument for social media being an "essential service"?

 

[pmv]

Big companies only "control" social media because people allow it. They trade having a data probe shoved up their asses for a couple cents in drive space, and some trivial software. Such a bargain! There's plenty of alternatives if people get off their lazy asses and use them.

Well, the issue, it seems to me, is that there are increasing rewards to scale. That is, the "big venues" are big because they are big. As with ecommerce sites like Ebay or Amazon-marketplace, when it comes to selling ideas, people want to be where everybody else is. Certain sites then become the "town square" of the internet. There's not much point hanging out and handing out your leaflets on some obscure side-road that nobody passes through.

 

[pmv]

Sure there is. There are technological solutions in development, that would allow one to "publish" THEIR OWN speech, freely, on the internet, using blockchain and decentralized technology.

My way of thinking that, would be, that I could "post" messages, to a "public" forum, and that forum would be free to unlink my posts from their forum (freedom of association of a private party). Those posts that I posted, would not actually be deleted or censored, they would be "floating about in the decentralized internet" - what I personally refer to as the "sea of data", but basically adrift, without "anchoring" those posts to any one forum. Using the appropriate search protocols for the "sea of data", someone, if they were so inclined, could find my "adrift posts". But the factual matter of things are, if you post unpopular speech, your posts may be "unlinked" from "anchor sites", like a certain forum. Just like search engines are free to "block" (not link via their search engine) spam sites, because they violate that search engine's Terms of Service.

Btw, Twitter and Facebook "banning" people, IS NOT CENSORSHIP. At least, not at the internet level. Neither is Parler's upstream hosts refusing to provide service to them.

If they want to see what REAL INTERNET CENSORSHIP IS, look at DNS-blackholes and IP-blacklists/bogon-filters/route blacklisting. THAT's what real internet censorship is, what China does.

I agree with the bit about "not censorship". Though I don't really understand the technical bit.

The key question is the right to a presence in the town square, to hand out your leaflets and wave your placards at the crowd. Especially if that town square is in fact a privately-owned shopping mall. Do we all have the "right" to talk to the rest of the citizenry, if the venue for exercising that right is private property?

There's an incompatibility between true "free-speech" and a system of private property rights. I'm not sure you can have both. Even without the latter, if you had communism, say, then you have the same problem with state-power regulating that ability to speak with each other. True 'free speech' is a chimera, it's not obtainable.

 

[MrSquished]

What's the argument for social media being an "essential service"?

There isn't any.

Obama led an entire presidency without using social media as a major way to get out his message.

It's just Trump's preferred way to do things, so they now pretend it's essential and a private company should be stripped of it's rights to have ethical standards so extremists can say whatever they want unchecked.

 

[lxskllr]

Well, the issue, it seems to me, is that there are increasing rewards to scale. That is, the "big venues" are big because they are big. As with ecommerce sites like Ebay or Amazon-marketplace, when it comes to selling ideas, people want to be where everybody else is. Certain sites then become the "town square" of the internet. There's not much point hanging out and handing out your leaflets on some obscure side-road that nobody passes through.

That's not a monopoly. That's just people being dumbasses. There's no reason people can't use federated services, and "subscribe" to the feeds they want using an api that pulls in data from numerous decentralized servers. If you want to hear from retards, you can subscribe to retards. That also means they can't be shutdown, Well, at least they couldn't with net neutrality. Oops...

 

[sdifox]

What's the argument for social media being an "essential service"?

Otherwise all the snowflakes are gonna melt.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Internet service providers are not considered public utilities yet in this country. Neither are wireless phones. Just landline phones are, whether on copper or data.

It's not quite that simple - and there are numerous restrictions on ISPs and Wireless phone carriers. While they may not have a full public utility declaration - they are very much restricted on many factors.

See:

What's the argument for social media being an "essential service"?

Who says public television channels, Cable TV are an essential service? They are getting knocked out by Streaming platforms as people continue to "cut the cord"

Who says Phones are "essential service" ? They are getting knocked out by cell-phones, with text messaging and other message abilities.


You realize over time, things evolve, right? Things evolve and adapt - for example, I don't even think retail places such as stores (or other places of businesses really?) have any paper applications for employment. They all rely on Internet Services for people to apply.

Now imagine - one or two platforms start to take over on these. Is it your public right to be able to apply for jobs? What if LinkedIn overtakes the market and everyone now applies through them because every company outsources their job application process?

 

[MrSquished]

It's not quite that simple - and there are numerous restrictions on ISPs and Wireless phone carriers. While they may not have a full public utility declaration - they are very much restricted on many factors.

See:

Who says public television channels, Cable TV are an essential service? They are getting knocked out by Streaming platforms as people continue to "cut the cord"

Who says Phones are "essential service" ? They are getting knocked out by cell-phones, with text messaging and other message abilities.


You realize over time, things evolve, right? Things evolve and adapt - for example, I don't even think retail places such as stores (or other places of businesses really?) have any paper applications for employment. They all rely on Internet Services for people to apply.

Now imagine - one or two platforms start to take over on these. Is it your public right to be able to apply for jobs? What if LinkedIn overtakes the market and everyone now applies through them because every company outsources their job application process?

That guy's points are mostly silly as he compares marginalized groups that have been discriminated against such as African Americans, to what is going on now, by mentioning the civil rights movement. I mean come on. It's insane to compare people not being allowed to spew hate speech and violence inspiring conspiracy theory rhetoric on private social media platforms to folks being discriminated against simply because they are black or brown or Jewish. etc... You really gotta stretch to compare Qanon people being banned from a social media platform for spreading violence inspring stuff to someone being refused food service simply because of the color of their skin. But that is the right wing these days, making insane arguments.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

That guy's points are mostly silly as he compares marginalized groups that have been discriminated against such as African Americans, to what is going on now, by mentioning the civil rights movement. I mean come on. It's insane to compare people not being allowed to spew hate speech and violence inspiring conspiracy theory rhetoric on private social media platforms to folks being discriminated against simply because they are black or brown or Jewish. etc... You really gotta stretch to compare Qanon people being banned from a social media platform for spreading violence inspring stuff to someone being refused food service simply because of the color of their skin. But that is the right wing these days, making insane arguments.

That only comes from the mind of someone that sees things from a narrow self-approving point of view.

 

[MrSquished]

That only comes from the mind of someone that sees things from a narrow self-approving point of view.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree that just simply being black is not the same as someone tweeting that Trump's political enemies need to be assassinated. How narrow minded of me

 

[pmv]

That's not a monopoly. That's just people being dumbasses. There's no reason people can't use federated services, and "subscribe" to the feeds they want using an api that pulls in data from numerous decentralized servers. If you want to hear from retards, you can subscribe to retards. That also means they can't be shutdown, Well, at least they couldn't with net neutrality. Oops...

I didn't say it was a 'monopoly'. Though "increasing returns to scale" is one of the factors in a tendency towards monopoly. And, if anything, the issue isn't wanting to hear from "retards" (not a term I care for), it's wanting to speak to them.

 

[nakedfrog]

Who says public television channels, Cable TV are an essential service? They are getting knocked out by Streaming platforms as people continue to "cut the cord"

Who says Phones are "essential service" ? They are getting knocked out by cell-phones, with text messaging and other message abilities.


You realize over time, things evolve, right? Things evolve and adapt - for example, I don't even think retail places such as stores (or other places of businesses really?) have any paper applications for employment. They all rely on Internet Services for people to apply.

Now imagine - one or two platforms start to take over on these. Is it your public right to be able to apply for jobs? What if LinkedIn overtakes the market and everyone now applies through them because every company outsources their job application process?

Ah... so, there IS no argument that social media IS an "essential service", just "but what if?"

 

[brianmanahan]

They even boycotted the Dixie Chicks for saying something not nice about Dubya for getting us into an illegal war.

oh yeah i remember when that happened. they were big and i enjoyed a few of their songs (guilty pleasure). but they got blacklisted and i didn't hear a single song of theirs on FM radio again until almost 10 years later. even now it'll maybe be once or twice a year.

 

[Scarpozzi]

Welp, you got a bigger problem then getting banned by FB and Twitter then.

That makes me wonder. Did Trump get banned from ATOT too? I didn't hear about it in the news, but haven't seen him post here lately either.

 

[Scarpozzi]

oh yeah i remember when that happened. they were big and i enjoyed a few of their songs (guilty pleasure). but they got blacklisted and i didn't hear a single song of theirs on FM radio again until almost 10 years later. even now it'll maybe be once or twice a year.

Yeah...you can't oppose the Military in the South when you're a country music band with a name like "Dixie"....since that is basically like saying Confederates don't fight. The whole thing is stupid and messed up. I just looked them up....after backlash over the racial injustice, they are no simply known as "The Chicks". Just wait for the women's rights people to come take that from them too.

 

[Torn Mind]

Generally speaking, legal principles can cut in ways unexpected from the intended way people who passed the principles in the first place. Once a principle is set to paper, undoing it is a herculean task and only when harm comes to the state's revenue or public relations do rollbacks occur.

Me personally, I prefer them to be allowed to talk, because they become public figures and actually give out their plays for the public and/or law enforcement to see.

The ban on Trump is essentially a cover up for Trump by Twitter. Those who were able to archive the messages can still process them, but no longer the public.

While it is likely that Poland's government is for regualtion so they can censor free speech, that some other major Euro powers spoke out their concerns highlight that private censorship is not something that is problem-free just because its private. The concern is that those in power will be emboldened to censor, regardless if the power-holder is the government or a mega corporation, and hence someone like Navalny, who has been detained by Putin, would express in concerns.

The Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny called it "an unacceptable act of censorship."
"This precedent will be exploited by the enemies of freedom of speech around the world," he tweeted.

 

[Torn Mind]

Yeah...you can't oppose the Military in the South when you're a country music band with a name like "Dixie"....since that is basically like saying Confederates don't fight. The whole thing is stupid and messed up. I just looked them up....after backlash over the racial injustice, they are no simply known as "The Chicks". Just wait for the women's rights people to come take that from them too.

"The thrice-cancelled nameless woman's band" will be the final name they have.

 

[MrSquished]

Yeah...you can't oppose the Military in the South when you're a country music band with a name like "Dixie"....since that is basically like saying Confederates don't fight. The whole thing is stupid and messed up. I just looked them up....after backlash over the racial injustice, they are no simply known as "The Chicks". Just wait for the women's rights people to come take that from them too.

They didn't oppose the military. They criticized Dubya for the imminent invasion of Iraq. If folks in the South can't separate not supporting a drummed up war based on propaganda that was gonna kill and maim thousands of US troops, not to mention foreigners, and cost us a boatload of money and international political currency, from supporting our military in general - well, I guess they are just dumb. Since when is supporting the military equal to sending them into bullshit wars?

And yes, progressive political correctness inspired them to change their name, but they exist. Right wing cancel culture tried to make them disappear altogether. Which is worse?

 

[Scarpozzi]

They didn't oppose the military. They criticized Dubya for the imminent invasion of Iraq. If folks in the South can't separate not supporting a drummed up war based on propaganda that was gonna kill and maim thousands of US troops, not to mention foreigners, and cost us a boatload of money and international political currency, from supporting our military in general - well, I guess they are just dumb. Since when is supporting the military equal to sending them into bullshit wars?

And yes, progressive political correctness inspired them to change their name, but they exist. Right wing cancel culture tried to make them disappear altogether. Which is worse?

In the South, if you ain't fer em, yet again em. They were acting as communist liberals trying to stop the us military from protecting our borders in Iraq, obviously.

I was boycotting their music before it was cool. 😎

 

[ultimatebob]

Welp, you got a bigger problem then getting banned by FB and Twitter then.

It probably took me five years to convince some of my more stubborn relatives to join Social Media to begin with.

That makes me wonder. Did Trump get banned from ATOT too? I didn't hear about it in the news, but haven't seen him post here lately either.

Trump is too smart to waste his time hanging out with us... he knows that most of us don't have any money to lend him

 

[sdifox]

It probably took me five years to convince some of my more stubborn relatives to join Social Media to begin with.


Trump is too smart to waste his time hanging out with us... he knows that most of us don't have any money to lend him

I mean why do you need social media to talk to your relatives?

 

[highland145]

Why do you talk to your relatives?

fixed