Yes. The more control centralized authority has the more they can control hate speech. Please babysit us apathetic cynical regulatory capture mechanisms - I mean politicians.
I’m so tired of seeing these posts. Private people can criticize whatever they want about Facebook and the crappy things they do. Commenting isn’t some “illegal activity” when it’s critical of legal activity.. Legality isn’t the ultimate shield against, guess what, criticism.
Thank God Jeff Bezos is protecting us from these vile terrorists.
We need to take down Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile. The insurrectionists were customers and bafflingly, these companies don't moderate their texts or phone calls whatsoever.
As long as it's framed as a way to cut off immoral right wing extremists from the financial system, Silicon Valley will enthusiastically embrace dystopian government control of currency.
And 20 years ago, neo-cons embracing dystopian government control to make sure muslims didn't use cash.
It's all control. But instead of seeing it as right vs. left, its better framed as authoritarians (historic and modern left [1], Silicon Valley, FBI) vs. people who value their freedom and privacy either because its innate to their being, or because their particular group is kept under a watchful eye (gays in the 80s, muslims 20 years ago, christians people today).
Avoid getting ensnared in the identity trap the way you just did. Once you do, you've accepted the basic premise of identity politics and, therefore, things like CRT; which is just 's/class/identity/g' for Marxism.
[1] that is all of the left's history from the Jacobins until today minus twenty or thirty years centered around the early 90s.
Neither party values freedom or privacy. Who can I vote for who even pretends? I'm gay and largely agree with leftist ideals, but completely disagree with modern tactics by both parties. But the left controls technology, and so I criticize them more because there's more at stake.
So I'm an identitarian for criticizing Silicon Valley for constantly engaging in that kind of discourse? Are you identitarian for assuming I am one?
I criticize Silicon Valley because they are worthy of criticism. You say they aren't?
Then AWS takes down Parlor. And so many on Hacker News rejoice.
"Go make your own AWS"
Where does that end? Go make your own domain registrar? Go make your own ICANN? Go make your own ISP? Go make your own internet? Go make your own microchips?
If some virtue signaling Silicon Valley execs want to impress their friends, you're done.
Oligarchy. Has nothing to do with capitalism or democracy. It has to do with internet points and social standing for elite tech executives.
Looks far more like McCarthyism or totalitarianism than anything resembling a free democracy.
There's no mechanism to force a private business to do a thing and the comparison you reach for is totalitarianism. It's incoherent.
There probably should be a serious discussion about how access to platforms is mediated, but there's a pretty big chance that you end up asking for an expansion of government powers if you say the companies aren't free to do what they want anymore.
If the US antitrust machine hadn't been asleep at the wheel for a couple decades, it wouldn't be a problem.
"There's no mechanism to force a private business to do a thing" - but bakeries have to make cakes for gay weddings - which I'm not opposed to.
If the vast majority of tech companies are based in the echo chamber of Silicon Valley, and they're going to ban any thought that falls outside of that narrow range, then political views need to be the next protected class.
Yes. An expansion of government powers. An added protected class. Or antitrust can come out of hibernation. Either way.
>> Where does that end? Go make your own domain registrar? Go make your own ICANN? Go make your own ISP? Go make your own internet? Go make your own microchips?
Yeah, let's forget that taxpayers paid for the internet and so much of the internet infrastructure in US. But it's cool to cut off the people who subsidized it.
> Then AWS takes down Parlor. And so many on Hacker News rejoice.
That is because AWS takedown of Parler is the one that is best argued. Largely due to Amazon having to respond to Parler suing them, but result is pretty convincing document.
So you kinda now have to make argument for why Amazon should be forced to continue to host Parler despite all that.
> Go make your own AWS"
AWS has 30% of market and Oracle have same API. There are options beside do own. Moreover, Parler have Mercers money funding, they are not poor nobodied without resources and backing.
You don't need Facebook to communicate your ideas to others.
You don't need AWS either. AWS is actually a backwards development of technology in my opinion because it is anti-open source.
It is quite straightforward to lease your own server and/or build your own and colo. You can even easily setup containers on such, or a cluster of them if you desire.
You also don't need a domain name to host a site. Plain IP addresses work fine in many situations. There are plenty of "shady" countries who will let you register DNS and do whatever you want with it.
Just look at the underground pirate community. None of this weak censorship by silencing Facebook posts is stopping them. Piracy will continue to the end of time, because if you have a bit of tech skill there is very little that can silence a person on the modern internet.
And yes, p2p ( without internet ) file sharing is alive and well. Those in draconian environments engage in it. Swapping 12tb drives is quite effective in sharing data.
Own microchips? Yeah we are heading that way. Hence the popularity of Risc-V and various "open hardware". Typically it is sufficient to use your own software stack on existing hardware though.
SV execs can't do shit about public opinion or the underground community.
The free exchange of information is alive and well. It just doesn't live on Facebook or Parler or any of that crap.
You do not need even electricity. People lived without power for thousands of generations and some still live like that.
It still would not be fine if there was a class of outcasts defined by execs of power distribution companies on whim.
The "you do not need" standard is a tricky one. Modern civilization is built around a lot of network-like structures. Getting kicked off them is a kind of punishment. We generally have some mechanisms that try to prevent capriciousness in punishment.
Would you rather do a year in San Quentin or be completely deplatformed by Big Tech forever? I would probably choose the former. Being prevented, for example, to send any e-mail to anyone with Gmail.com address is a serious problem.
I would be delighted to be banned from all technology for eternity. I would wear the ban like a badge of honor and devote my life to the advancement of something more noble such as mathematics.
If you are the kind of talent that can make significant contributions alone, that is a viable (and enviable) way of life.
But if you need to co-operate, that is really hard to do without tech. I used to do some work in algebra 20 years ago and mathematicians were one of the first branches to network extensively. It happens all too often that the other person who is interested and knowledgeable about the same arcane problem lives several time zones away.
I only got a single question wrong on the math portion of the SAT, and frankly SAT math is extremely easy. I just wasn't taking it seriously enough.
I took Calculus my first semester and scored over 98 on every test. No one else in the class scored above 80 on any of the tests. The teacher was dumbfounded.
I, of course, have a degree in mathematics... Undergrad math was... boring.
The only reason I didn't continue down the path of high level math is because it isn't profitable. It is also hell on the mind. Few understand that but it is very easy to get lost in a world of math if you are good enough at it. It consumes your entire mind. It is somewhat beautiful in that way, but doesn't lead to one become very balanced as an individual.
Cooperation is for pussies. Those who make the biggest difference in history are those who give zero shits about anyone else and devote their lives to furthering what they pursue. Very few teams can hold a candle to a dedicated prodigy.
There are these things called books. There are tons of them. They hold far more useful information that can be absorbed very rapidly compared to talking to people. Communicating with people live is... slow... tedious... and unrewarding.
>You don't need Facebook to communicate your ideas to others.
Interesting, that is the same point conservative judge Robert Bork used to make, and while not the only reason why he was rejected for the Supreme Court, it was certainly a factor. Weird how someone like Bork, who used to be considered on the far fringe of conservativism, is now part of mainstream liberal orthodoxy.
Let's talk about the purpose of these things, chairs & papaers.
The purpose of a chair is to enhance the space it resides in by enabling folks to rest/sit in the chair.
The purpose of a paper is to document science, such that others can see that science, replicate it, learn from it, extend it; the purpose of a paper is to present science such that we can all beget yet more science to happen.
What's embarrassing is the fact that our industry is so obsessed with censoring wrongthink that it's not enough to drive thought criminals off of mainstream platforms - we have to drive alternative platforms off of their infrastructure.
