Quote: (11-29-2017 11:47 AM)Matt Forney Wrote:
Quote: (11-29-2017 03:25 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:
Yelling freedom of speech is being censored is plain bullshit. You never had any rights to freedom of speech using the resources of others. That is entitlement talking.
The Supreme Court's decision in Marsh v. Alabama proves you wrong.
Marsh v. Alabama states that private entities do not have the right to restrict freedom of speech on their property if they happen to hold a monopoly on the means by which speech can take place. The context was that a Jehovah's Witness was arrested for pamphleteering in a company town where the roads and sidewalks---the only means by which she could express her freedom of speech---were owned by the company.
Keyword is monopoly which you haven't proved Facebook and Google are monopolies for speech. I think that is the main point we are disagreeing about.
People can exercise their freedom of speech without having to sign into Facebook to do so.
What we can prove, easily, is that ISP's are monopolies in many different areas.
Quote:Quote:
That was just one dinky little company town in Alabama. Google, Facebook etc. hold more power over freedom of speech than the Gulf Shipbuilding Corporation ever did. A decent lawyer could sue all of these companies (as well as ISPs) for restricting freedom of speech (and in the case of ISPs, for throttling sites arbitrarily) and win thanks to the Marsh v. Alabama precedent. The fact that it hasn't been tried yet speaks to the ignorance of the general public and the uselessness of the government.
I would agree if we were talking about Google Search. Once you bring in Facebook and Twitter you lose your argument.
Again, we could take your argument and use that for ISP's throttling traffic for certain sites and thus censoring those sites. There is also nothing stopping them from totally turning off traffic to certain sites. Of course, they may never do that, but if they did, there would be nothing people could do about it since they may be the only provider within the area.
Quote:Quote:
You seem to exist in this libertarian fantasy world where we have a perfect free market and anyone don't like an app/service or gets banned from using it can just build or move to another one. (Yet this libertarian fantasy world somehow requires the government to keep ISPs from charging the proper value for their bandwidth. Who is John Galt?)
Nope, but it doesn't surprise me that someone who complains they can't post on others platforms would think that. I believe in low regulations when there is plenty of competition and/or low barriers of entry.
ISP's are neither competitive enough nor are the barriers of entry low enough to allow them unregulated control over our internet access.
We already talked about building software platforms and I pointed out a few apps that were able to achieve high growth even though they faced competition from Google and Facebook along with their billions of dollars.
But, but, that is just a liberal fantasy. lol
You used Gab, as an example, which looks to be nothing new besides their attempt at branding itself as a freedom of speech Twitter clone. The problem is there isn't enough of a reason for the majority of people, on Twitter, to move over to that platform. You and your banned cronies are a very small segment in the grand scheme of things.
In other words, you have to be creative instead of trying to clone another app. You can't bring the same ole thing and expect people to fall over themselves signing up.
Quote:Quote:
You're completely ignorant to how the left has subverted capitalism by infiltrating every corporation imaginable and using them to enforce cultural Marxism, all perfectly within the rules of your vaunted free market. AnonymousBosch used to write about this extensively before he quit the forum (and frankly I don't blame him at this point), but here are some examples.
I already named Gab as an example of how tech giants are already colluding to shut out competition, which "net neutrality" rules have done nothing to prevent. Gab is prohibited from listing its mobile app on either Google's or Apple's stores because of "hate speech," a completely nebulous, undefined concept that in practice means anything the left doesn't like. Apple even hilariously rejected Gab over supposedly "obscene," pornographic content on the site, even though Twitter and Tumblr are full of porn.
That sounds like more entitlement to me. The days of being an instant success by listing on the Apple and Google store is long over. It may surprise you, but you can be successful without those stores.
Quote:Quote:
I suppose your counterargument to this is that Gab should just suck it up and develop their own mobile OS/line of phones if they don't like being blacklisted from Google's and Apple's.
No, my counter argument is that Gab offers nothing to get people to switch. It looks more like a refugee for people that were banned from Twitter.
Sort of like NaughtyNomad's forum.
Quote:Quote:
Let's take the Daily Stormer being banned from every domain registrar in existence. Net neutrality did nothing to prevent this. Is Andrew Anglin supposed to just suck it up and build his own ICANN-accredited registrar that won't ban him? Pax Dickinson already floated that idea. It would cost several million dollars, a sum that most people don't have lying around.
ICANN is the bigger threat to freedom of speech, imo.
Quote:Quote:
And isn't it weird how despite having a supposedly free market, all these different companies in different fields hold the exact same opinions and ban people for the exact same reasons? It's almost like they're being subverted by a certain group of people... but nah, that's impossible, cause muh free market. Who is John Galt?
I just pointed this out a few times. It is about the Silicon Valley culture and how most of the tech being used today comes out of that group.
Even if you throttle their traffic, even if break up the companies, you will still have the same problem because that whole area is composed of a toxic culture.
The only way to beat them is to out compete. It sounds like you want to government to take these companies over and make them play nice. The problem with line of thinking is when the next White House administration comes in they may go after the group that you support.
Quote:Quote:
The fact that you think "crony capitalism" is just a "buzzword" despite all the evidence for its existence shows that you aren't paying attention. Or you're invested in the myth of libertarianism and muh free market to such a degree that you aren't willing to consider any countervailing evidence.
You haven't shown me any evidence to change my mind. I'm not married to my opinion, unlike you seem to be. I don't use their platforms, unlike you. Whether they get taken over by the government or whether they do business as usual, will not affect me in any way.
I am for low regulations and high competition. I am for monopolies being broke up to allow for more competition if they are indeed monopolies. I don't agree they are monopolies. Nor do I agree that my freedom of speech requires me to sign into Facebook, Google and Twitter.
Quote:Quote:
Here's the reality: the left realized that they would never be able to pass hate speech laws in the U.S. due to the First Amendment like they have in other countries. Instead, they infiltrated and pressured companies like Facebook---who have deliberately tried to make themselves into necessary parts of everyday life---into doing an end run around the Constitution instead.
I agree and that is the culture of Silicon Valley. As long as they continue to supply the tech we all use that will always be an issue. No amount of government interference will stop it. Too much government interference will kill advancement, though.
The only way to stop it is to compete.
Quote:Quote:
They're also using these companies to push other parts of their agenda that they can't enact via the government (especially now with the Democrats reduced to a regional party of the North, the Left Coast, and Chicago). You don't think it's odd how corporations, despite being supposedly "right-wing," are all about gay rights now, for example?
Look, I'm not saying companies don't push bullshit agendas.
I actually agreed that they do. I just don't agree with how you want to address this.
You have Comcast, one of the biggest ISP's, own MSNBC. These big ISP's are in the content business. You think they don't have agenda's?
Quote:Quote:
But I guess I just have "sour grapes" because I'm pointing all this out. I should just shut up and kneel before the sanctity of the Free Market. Muh Free Market! Muh Free Market! Who is John Galt?
I do think you have sour grapes about this issue. I am baffled at you trying to say that Google, Facebook and Twitter are necessary for free speech.
Anyway, I do appreciate you taking the time to write out those specific points. It gives me a better idea where you are coming from. Like I said, I am not married to my opinion on this. I agree with many of your points, but I think the main difference we have is you believe certain online platforms are a necessity when I don't.
You believe there is a conspiracy to crush any right wing software apps. I find it strange that these big companies would allow any competition, whether they were left or right leaning, to come into their markets and take money away if they could stop them. Yet we do see it happening even with their massive resources.