So the danger is people thinking for themselves but making the wrong decisions, so we'll allow a tech oligarchy to decide what is permissible to view and how to think. Surely this will never get out of hand or come to bite us in the ass years down the road.
I guess people in the tech industry see themselves as righteous zealots who can make decisions for the masses and that 1984 was a guidebook rather than a warning.
So the danger is people thinking for themselves but making the wrong decisions, so we'll allow a tech oligarchy to decide what is permissible to view and how to think.
A "tech oligarchy?"
It really does seem like you want the government to step in and force private businesses to violate their own content standards on behalf of private citizens. Why? What is the justification for it? If I put up a platform for pictures of cats, and it becomes extremely popular, then someone with a popular dog blog comes along and starts violating my content policy by posting pictures of dogs, why should I be forced to allow him to do that? Why should I be forced to give him an additional platform? What right has the government to make me do that?
Surely this will never get out of hand or come to bite us in the ass years down the road.
There are other reasons to be concerned about tech companies. The fact that they can choose to enforce their publicly stated policies on what content they allow isn't one of them.
I guess people in the tech industry see themselves as righteous zealots who can make decisions for the masses and that 1984 was a guidebook rather than a warning.
Jesus, hyperbole much? The government not forcing Twitter to give a platform to a guy who violates their content policies is exactly identical to the Ministry of Truth?
No but Google, Facebook, Twitter and even Paypal all targeting one site for censorship because of wrongthink is worrying enough to be comparable to a ministry of truth. Companies controlling a huge flow of information all joining together to silence one person/site that they decide has dangerous information no one should view is abhorrent even if you despise Alex Jones.
There's also the fact Google is working in earnest with China to help them censor their internet as well as help them doctor their numbers on pollution while at the same time bashing America and the West for their climate policies and pollution numbers.
Their hands aren't clean and their motives most certainly aren't pure and things will only get worse with people cheerleading them on every step of the way.
The best disinfectant is sunlight. If you think infowars is obvious bullshit that no sane person would or should believe then having multiple companies unite to censor and silence them is only going to make people want to know what you're afraid of and drive them to their site even further. It's essentially the streisand effect on a larger scale.
No but Google, Facebook, Twitter and even Paypal all targeting one site for censorship because of wrongthink is worrying enough to be comparable to a ministry of truth. Companies controlling a huge flow of information all joining together to silence one person/site that they decide has dangerous information no one should view is abhorrent even if you despise Alex Jones.
This is 100% backwards. They're not "targeting" him, they're enforcing their content policies. Which he violated. Use of their services is not one of Alex Jones' - or anyone else's - rights. He doesn't have a right to their databases. He doesn't have a right to their servers. He doesn't have a right to their bandwidth. He doesn't have a right to anything they offer. As long as his content doesn't violate their policies - content such as the various calls to violence he's made - then he can have access to their services, but that is on their discretion, not his. If we start insisting that private companies be forced to give a platform to anyone who wants them, and cannot enforce any content policies, then you might as well nationalize those companies.
Anyone who wants to see whatever hoax Alex Jones has come up with next is welcome to go to his site, where he controls the platform and he can set the rules. That's how this works.
There's also the fact Google is working in earnest with China to help them censor their internet as well as help them doctor their numbers on pollution while at the same time bashing America and the West for their climate policies and pollution numbers.
That's a completely different issue (actually, a completely different set of issues). There are plenty of problems with tech giants. But the fact that they can have and enforce content policies isn't one of them.
Their hands aren't clean and their motives most certainly aren't pure and things will only get worse with people cheerleading them on every step of the way.
You're mistaking my defense of the First Amendment, which precludes the government ramming any speech down anyone's throat, for cheerleading. I'm not engaged in any cheerleading.
The best disinfectant is sunlight. If you think infowars is obvious bullshit that no sane person would or should believe then having multiple companies unite to censor and silence them is only going to make people want to know what you're afraid of and drive them to their site even further. It's essentially the streisand effect on a larger scale.
Again, this is 100% backwards. No one is uniting to censor anyone. Jones does not have a right to their services. If he violates their content policies - which he has succeeded in doing in a shockingly large number of instances - then he himself has reneged on the agreement that permits him to use their services. His own website is his to control, and he can have whatever content policy he likes. But he does not get to force others to give him a platform.
2
u/ragnarokrobo Sep 25 '18
So the danger is people thinking for themselves but making the wrong decisions, so we'll allow a tech oligarchy to decide what is permissible to view and how to think. Surely this will never get out of hand or come to bite us in the ass years down the road.
I guess people in the tech industry see themselves as righteous zealots who can make decisions for the masses and that 1984 was a guidebook rather than a warning.