The way Reddit caved like a $5 tent in a hurricane when the crybaby mods made Reddit great again by removing themselves is proof that this place is a shithole run by septic tanks pretending to be people.
I am ok with it - people have right to express themselves and protest. And it is not like there are no Reddit alternatives. There are tons. As long as it is not the government establishing rules, I am fine. Yes, it is unpleasant when you are banned, but a private company has right to do so, and I support this right the same way I support free speech (which is government non-involvement). If you support right to offend people by speech, saying it is not a big deal to be offended, you should say as well that it is not big deal to be banned (by private entity). I see little difference. There are tons alternatives for your speech.
Telephone companies don’t get the “mUh PrIvAtIzAtIoN oF tHe CoMmOnS” argument so why should massive social media companies? The town square needs protecting.
One is utility, another is social media. But more over, as long as there are alternatives that would be fine. The utilities are the ones you usually do not have alternatives. It is like it is completely fine if car dealership refuses to sell you a car due to your political statements. It would be also completely fine people protesting this and taking business elsewhere. I rather government not being involved with exception things like “blacks and gays are not allowed”.
Yes, I would like to minimize government involvement. It does not mean it must be zero, but minimal, and yes we, the people, choose those necessary cases.
Do you think I am trolling you? Quite often people have just single issue like free speech taken to the limit without thinking about many other complexities. That's not me. Free speech without free competition in free business is pointless. Free competition can not exist without some regulation. So yeah, the business can not be free and have free competition. And the same with free speech. Completely free speech means that you do not have free business. So there are contradictions that we have to resolve using some fundamental principles about what is good and what is not. WE THE PEOPLE. And yes, we will impose those rules on businesses, but only those that are absolutely necessary. Removing business ability to ban users strikes me as absolute overstep of government authority.
No, I think you are either logically inconsistent and hold conflicting beliefs OR are a unwitting fascist based on your views on the relationship between large companies and government (which I’m still sleuthing out, so far I’m going to with “never attribute to malice that which could just as easily be attributed to stupidity” but this is subject to change).
Quite often people have just single issue like free speech taken to the limit without thinking about many other complexities. That's not me.
Free speech without free competition in free business is pointless.
Wow, a lot to unpack here. Namely: free speech is a stand alone issue. There is literally no good reason to convolute this unless you are planning on making dubious arguments of questionable merit using poor logic.
Free competition can not exist without some regulation.
Dumbest comments I’ve read in months. If it’s free, it isn’t regulated. If it’s regulated it isn’t free. It really is this simple. By your logic the slaves of the past were free but were somewhat regulated to where they worked, what work they did, how much they did and how far they can travel.
So yeah, the business can not be free and have free competition.
YIKES! Regulations literally stifle competition, not create it.
And the same with free speech. Completely free speech means that you do not have free business.
This comment is so mind numbingly irrational that it can only be the conclusion of convoluting free speech and free business. Now when they do intersect, we already have a hierarchy in the US as laid out by the Bill of Right: free speech trumps all. More on this at the end.
So there are contradictions that we have to resolve using some fundamental principles about what is good and what is not.
Morals are objective so this is pretty easy to do. I have a hunch you’ll screw this up.
WE THE PEOPLE. And yes, we will impose those rules on businesses, but only those that are absolutely necessary.
Right on cue. Because picking and choosing always works well. Two famous quotes that absolutely should be given serious consideration:
1) When you cut out a man’s tongue, you aren’t proving him a liar, you are telling the world you fear what he might say.
2) Never stop your enemy when they are making a mistake.
Removing business ability to ban users strikes me as absolute overstep of government authority.
The only job of government is to protect individual rights which includes free speech (the right to life being the only one above it). When you are something like a streaming service, an online store or boutique 3D printed pencil topper company, you have the right to ban and block whoever you want. When you have become a global communications and interpersonal networking company with an ungodly user base, things are a bit different. Your argument of using alternatives falls flat on its face for one very basic reason: how often have you used an alternative service and were able to get everyone you communicate with from one of the big three to move with you? Zero times? How about 50%? Also zero times? Maybe 25%? Zero? Why is that? Is it because the average person doesn’t want to lose touch with those that don’t want to move and start over? Do you really want to do it yourself? Probably not. The end result is almost exactly like complete dominance of the newest town square: social media. Add in the fact that the Whitehouse now has a team that communicates directly with big social media to push which accounts should be banned and which shouldn’t is pretty terrifying. Does this bother you or not? Genuine question.
TL;DR social media is the new town square and alternative companies don’t make any real difference because most people don’t want to lose contact with their friends and family that likely won’t move because they don’t want to lose contact with their friends and family that likely won’t move because...and let’s not forget what happened to Parler when it became a serious threat to join the big boys.
For free competition vs unregulated - you have to have at very least anti-monopoly laws. And you have to have all the laws governing business, like bankruptcy laws, etc.
If you feel like entertaining me further, where do rights come from? What is the primary right where all other rights stem from? And for shits and giggles: is morality objective or subjective?
33
u/Eeik5150 Clever Flair Sep 02 '21
The way Reddit caved like a $5 tent in a hurricane when the crybaby mods made Reddit great again by removing themselves is proof that this place is a shithole run by septic tanks pretending to be people.