Capitol riots to set pretext for more internet censorship

truth and logic

We must, (introduce a Universal Service Mandate), for reasons of fairness.

If companies break the law then they can be dealt with, by the police and by the courts. We don't need a second de facto legal system run by Amazon and by others.

Parler was shut down unfairly by Amazon. There will be a backlash in terms of politics.

Timberrrrrrrr

truth and logic wrote: »

We must, (introduce a Universal Service Mandate), for reasons of fairness.

If companies break the law then they can be dealt with, by the police and by the courts. We don't need a second de facto legal system run by Amazon and by others.

Parler was shut down unfairly by Amazon. There will be a backlash in terms of politics.

Parler wasn't "shut down" parler can go to any number of other companies and be hosted there. Amazon chose to discontinue doing business with Parler as is thier right.

Fighting Tao

truth and logic wrote: »

We must, (introduce a Universal Service Mandate), for reasons of fairness.

If companies break the law then they can be dealt with, by the police and by the courts. We don't need a second de facto legal system run by Amazon and by others.

Parler was shut down unfairly by Amazon. There will be a backlash in terms of politics.

Parler was removed from using services for continuous breaches of agreements they signed up to. Simple as that.

truth and logic

My point is simple. Amazon shouldn't have the power to impose conditions on their customers about content.

The electricity supply companies cannot impose conditions on content on companies that use electricity. There would be chaos if they could. The postal service cannot black list companies for idealogical reasons.

Amazon need to provide services fairly, without interference, and without imposing conditions which are more onerous than the law, if they want to stay in the business.

Fighting Tao

truth and logic wrote: »

My point is simple. Amazon shouldn't have the power to impose conditions on their customers about content.

The electricity supply companies cannot impose conditions on content on companies that use electricity. There would be chaos if they could. The postal service cannot black list companies for idealogical reasons.

Amazon need to provide services fairly, without interference, and without imposing conditions which are more onerous than the law, if they want to stay in the business.

Electrical companies do enforce conditions. You cannot tamper with the meter, and you must pay your bills. I’m sure there are loads more if I read the terms and conditions I signed up to. If you breach their conditions they can cut you off. This has occurred many times.

King Mob

truth and logic wrote: »

It is obviously wrong that Amazon have this much control over essential services like internet infrastructure.

Access to the internet for companies is essential. It cannot be left to the whim of Amazon or of others.

We must introduce a Universal Service Mandate for backend internet services.

Legislation is needed in this area.

But amazon hosting servers for a private business for profit is not an essential service in the same way that electricity is.

There's nothing essential about a version of Twitter that lets you be racist.

Timberrrrrrrr

truth and logic wrote: »

My point is simple. Amazon shouldn't have the power to impose conditions on their customers about content.

They are a private company and you agree to their T&C's when you sign up to use their service.

The electricity supply companies cannot impose conditions on content on companies that use electricity.
There would be chaos if they could.

Yes they can

The postal service cannot black list companies for idealogical reasons.

Yes they can, try sending a load of unsolicited blatantly racist post cards through the post and see how quickly they blacklist them.

Amazon need to provide services fairly, without interference, and without imposing conditions which are more onerous than the law, if they want to stay in the business.

AGAIN, You agree to their conditions when you sign up to use the service, if the conditions don't suit you then you are free to use a different company.

truth and logic

Internet Services are essential services in the modern world.

If a company wants to offer internet services they must do so fairly, without conditions on content, other than not allowing illegal content, which should be dealt with by the police and by the courts.

We don't need private police and private rules and laws.

The only issue is deciding what content is legal and which is not. That's quite difficult, but no-one is suggesting that Parler allows illegal content. They remove content which is illegal, and therefore Amazon should have no problem with them.

King Mob

truth and logic wrote: »

Internet Services are essential services in the modern world.

Yes, access to the internet is.
No one who used or worked with Parler has had their access to the internet affected.

Hosting servers for a for profit company is not essential.

Not sure why you believe that people should be forced to host racist and offensive content against their will.

And again, you're not really explaining what's preventing Parler from finding hosting elsewhere or providing their own.

This all just seems like childish whining on their part honestly.

Do you agree that Parler was allowing horrible racist content?

truth and logic

Amazon can choose not to host any content at all, so they're not being forced to do anything.

If Amazon choose to offer web services they must do so without discrimination.

It is a question of politics as to whether or not internet services will be considered essential services or not. I hope politicians do introduce a universal service mandate. We don't need Amazon telling us what we can and cannot do, we have an elected government for that.


Amazon are amassing too much power. They can challenge governments now, and that's not a good thing.

King Mob

truth and logic wrote: »

If Amazon choose to offer web services they must do so without discrimination.

They don't though.

truth and logic wrote: »

It is a question of politics as to whether or not internet services will be considered essential services or not.

Hosting servers for a for profit business is not an essential service by any measure or definition.
Racist twitter is not essential.


You've dodged the question:
Do you agree that Parler was allowing horrible racist content?
Yes or no?

truth and logic

Do I agree that Parler was allowing horrible racist content?

I'm not sure about that.

The word 'horrible' is a personal assessment. It cannot be expected that everyone would agree that the content was 'horrible'. Nor can it be expected that everyone would even agree that the content itself was racist.


Is racist content illegal?
I don't think that it is, and therefore it should remain up.

If racist content is illegal then it should be dealt with by the law.

Racism is a real problem in our society but it is not going anywhere. It is natural in humans, even if it is undesirable and unwanted.

King Mob

truth and logic wrote: »

Do I agree that Parler was allowing horrible racist content?

I'm not sure about that.

The word 'horrible' is a personal assessment. It cannot be expected that everyone would agree that the content was 'horrible'. Nor can it be expected that everyone would even agree that the content itself was racist.

Lol, question dodged entirely.

Parler was hosting horrible racist crap.

Timberrrrrrrr

truth and logic wrote: »

Do I agree that Parler was allowing horrible racist content?

I'm not sure about that.

The word 'horrible' is a personal assessment. It cannot be expected that everyone would agree that the content was 'horrible'. Nor can it be expected that everyone would even agree that the content itself was racist.


Is racist content illegal?
I don't think that it is, and therefore it should remain up.

If racist content is illegal then it should be dealt with by the law.

Racism is a real problem in our society but it is not going anywhere. It is natural in humans, even if it is undesirable and unwanted.

Speak for yourself!

Fighting Tao

truth and logic wrote: »

Do I agree that Parler was allowing horrible racist content?

I'm not sure about that.

The word 'horrible' is a personal assessment. It cannot be expected that everyone would agree that the content was 'horrible'. Nor can it be expected that everyone would even agree that the content itself was racist.


Is racist content illegal?
I don't think that it is, and therefore it should remain up.

If racist content is illegal then it should be dealt with by the law.

Racism is a real problem in our society but it is not going anywhere. It is natural in humans, even if it is undesirable and unwanted.

Racism is learned, and not natural in humans. Look at toddlers playing. They don’t see skin colour. They only see another child no different to them.

truth and logic

Evolutionary psychologists, like Bill von Hipple, basically say that racism is natural.

It's like this.
There was a time when humans were prey animals. Then humans learnt to group together and to fight as a group. In particular, humans learnt to throw stones. A group of humans throwing stones is a formidable force and nothing in nature could stand against us.

Of course, an individual human could still be killed in a hunt by a mastodon or by a sabre toothed tiger. But those animals couldn't systematically hunt down and kill humans in the way that we could hunt them down and kill them.

Humans were top of the pile at that stage. Individual humans depended entirely on their group to survive. If left alone it was a death sentence for that individual human.

Humans became very secure in their own group.

The only thing that could challenge your group of humans, on the entire planet, was...
other groups of humans.
This situation persisted for tens of thousands of years, and we evolved in that environment.


That's why people stick together with people like them, and that's why people are fearful or distrustful of outsiders. The only thing that could challenge early groups of humans was other groups of humans, and that's why racism evolved. Racism is an evolved trait, and is not learnt. This is science, even if the conclusions are unpopular.

Fighting Tao

truth and logic wrote: »

Evolutionary psychologists, like Bill von Hipple, basically say that racism is natural.

It's like this.
There was a time when humans were prey animals. Then humans learnt to group together and to fight as a group. In particular, humans learnt to throw stones. A group of humans throwing stones is a formidable force and nothing in nature could stand against us.

Of course, an individual human could still be killed in a hunt by a mastodon or by a sabre toothed tiger. But those animals couldn't systematically hunt down and kill humans in the way that we could hunt them down and kill them.

Humans were top of the pile at that stage. Individual humans depended entirely on their group to survive. If left alone it was a death sentence for that individual human.

Humans became very secure in their own group.

The only thing that could challenge your group of humans, on the entire planet, was...
other groups of humans.
This situation persisted for tens of thousands of years, and we evolved in that environment.


That's why people stick together with people like them, and that's why people are fearful or distrustful of outsiders. The only thing that could challenge early groups of humans was other groups of humans, and that's why racism evolved. Racism is an evolved trait, and is not learnt. This is science, even if the conclusions are unpopular.

So why part of that is a direct quote from the source and what did you add?

truth and logic

What do you mean?

The entire post is my own words.

Why are you quoting my post like that?

King Mob

truth and logic wrote: »

Evolutionary psychologists, like Bill von Hipple, basically say that racism is natural.

It's like this.
There was a time ...

Ok. You agree that there was stuff on Parler that was racist, you just don't have an issue with it because you've jumped to the conclusion it's natural to be racist.

Not sure why you dodged my yes or no question about it.

Regardless, for most people, they don't subscribe to these silly beliefs and find racism repugnant.
Some people would not like to do business where they would be associated with, and profit from, such repugnant ideas.
Not sure why they should be forced to do that.

Fighting Tao

truth and logic wrote: »

What do you mean?

The entire post is my own words.

Why are you quoting my post like that?

So you are saying what you think he said, not what he actually said. I could say that he said the sky is green in that case and I’d be right in your mind.

Detritus70

ShatterAlan wrote: »

And who gets to determine what apps/platforms can exist and which ones can't?


It think the majority would agree that Jaws 3 is a floating turd of a movie. Does that mean it's ok to ban it?

The owner of the platform. If I run a business and a guy causes trouble, I tell him to get out.
Buut of course you know that, you're just refusing to see the point because your entire argument falls apart.
"We reserve the right to refuse admission".
That is a fact and cannot be altered by any of your so called arguments.
If I don't want you as a customer, your getting the boot and you can shout and scream all you want, but you're not coming back inside the shop.
Or you probably would, are you one of those guys that keeps coming back after being banned just to cause trouble?

They can set up their own servers or find idiots in Russia or China who will host them.
If you sh*t in the shop, you're gonna get sh*tcanned.
Comprende Amigo?

Detritus70

"I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."



https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png

truth and logic

Detritus70 wrote: »

...
"We reserve the right to refuse admission".
That is a fact and cannot be altered by any of your so called arguments.
...

Owners of businesses don't have the right to refuse admission on any of the protected grounds, such as age, race, sexuality etc.


I believe internet hosting companies should be required to host all content, unless the content is illegal.


The standard to be held to should be the law, and not a private company's Terms and Conditions. Internet hosting is too important to be left to the whims of private companies.



Similar to electricity in Ireland in the 1950's, when we had the Great Electricification Project, paid for out of the public purse, with a universal mandate. There are differences too.

Timberrrrrrrr

truth and logic wrote: »

Owners of businesses don't have the right to refuse admission on any of the protected grounds, such as age, race, sexuality etc.


I believe internet hosting companies should be required to host all content, unless the content is illegal.


The standard to be held to should be the law, and not a private company's Terms and Conditions. Internet hosting is too important to be left to the whims of private companies.



Similar to electricity in Ireland in the 1950's, when we had the Great Electricification Project, paid for out of the public purse, with a universal mandate. There are differences too.

Are you saying racism is not illegal? Go stand in a main street in any major city with a megaphone and spout racist diatribes, please film it for us as it would be a joy to hear you tell the local police it's not illegal as you get arrested.

Fighting Tao

truth and logic wrote: »

Owners of businesses don't have the right to refuse admission on any of the protected grounds, such as age, race, sexuality etc.


I believe internet hosting companies should be required to host all content, unless the content is illegal.


The standard to be held to should be the law, and not a private company's Terms and Conditions. Internet hosting is too important to be left to the whims of private companies.



Similar to electricity in Ireland in the 1950's, when we had the Great Electricification Project, paid for out of the public purse, with a universal mandate. There are differences too.

People can have their electricity supply cut off completely. There is no universal right to it. We went through that already.

None of it was at the whim of a private company. Parler repeatedly brok the agreements they made. They could have abided by their agreements but they didn’t.

How is the search for the William von Hippel quote/paper going?

Detritus70

truth and logic wrote: »

Owners of businesses don't have the right to refuse admission on any of the protected grounds, such as age, race, sexuality etc.


I believe internet hosting companies should be required to host all content, unless the content is illegal.


The standard to be held to should be the law, and not a private company's Terms and Conditions. Internet hosting is too important to be left to the whims of private companies.



Similar to electricity in Ireland in the 1950's, when we had the Great Electricification Project, paid for out of the public purse, with a universal mandate. There are differences too.

So should Boards be required to print absolutely anything you write?
In the Motors section you can't post about foglights. In other sections you're not allowed to talk about religion or football.
And if you don't abide by those rules, to which you agreed when opening a boards.ie account, you will get banned and thrown off the platform.

A private business will provide you with a service, but only as long as youkeep to the terms and conditions.
If you don't, you'll get thrown off the platform.

Seriously, this isn't hard to understand...

King Mob

truth and logic wrote: »

Owners of businesses don't have the right to refuse admission on any of the protected grounds, such as age, race, sexuality etc.

Racism and mad conspiracy theories aren't protected grounds though.

Being a racist with racist beliefs is not equivalent to age, race, sexuality etc.

ShatterAlan

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's in the title.



You are presenting this (very vague) notion that some companies are "working together" to shut down free speech because it's somehow not in their best interests.

So why is Twitter taking part in this? they are losing users

More deflecting and attempts at turning this into a circular argument.


If a thread title was "Contractors embezzle millions in federal funds during Hurricane Katrina cleanup" would you start waffling on about meteorological patterns and how the storm formed and progressed?

Fighting Tao

ShatterAlan wrote: »

More deflecting and attempts at turning this into a circular argument.


If a thread title was "Contractors embezzle millions in federal funds during Hurricane Katrina cleanup" would you start waffling on about meteorological patterns and how the storm formed and progressed?

Obviously your opening post is confusing, as people both sides of the discussion have deviated and progressed from your ideal conversation that appeared to lack substance and so the conversation moved on.

silliussoddius

Detritus70 wrote: »

"I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express."



https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/free_speech.png

Sums it up, although there are many who seem think freedom of speech gives them a guarantee that their opinion is correct.