Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/06/apple-p ... peech.html

Seen a lot of "I don't like Alex Jones, but-" today, and even several liberal youtubers I've seen have raised objections about this.

So, if we choose to agree to Chizzang's persuasive arguments that because the net infrastructure was built by the public sector that it should be a public utility, how exactly can you argue big tech companies should be able to use that infrastructure to play Ministry of Truth and ban people for vague "hate speech" criteria while claiming to have open platforms?

Also, it's kind of weird that all of these companies decided to do it at one time.

They have the right to ban anyone they want from their platforms.

Pwns wrote:https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/06/apple-p ... peech.html

Seen a lot of "I don't like Alex Jones, but-" today, and even several liberal youtubers I've seen have raised objections about this.

So, if we choose to agree to Chizzang's persuasive arguments that because the net infrastructure was built by the public sector that it should be a public utility, how exactly can you argue big tech companies should be able to use that infrastructure to play Ministry of Truth and ban people for vague "hate speech" criteria while claiming to have open platforms?

Also, it's kind of weird that all of these companies decided to do it at one time.

Because "they didn't build that"...or something along those lines...

Vidav wrote:They have the right to ban anyone they want from their platforms.

Agree...but if we were dealing with a cake the situation would be a whole lot different...

Vidav wrote:They have the right to ban anyone they want from their platforms.

You read what he wrote, right?

Pwns wrote: So, if we choose to agree to Chizzang's persuasive arguments that because the net infrastructure was built by the public sector

The American Broadband Infrastructure was built by the American tax payer
That's not "a persuasive argument" it's a verifiable fact...

Chizzang wrote:

Pwns wrote: So, if we choose to agree to Chizzang's persuasive arguments that because the net infrastructure was built by the public sector

The American Broadband Infrastructure was built by the American tax payer
That's not "a persuasive argument" it's a verifiable fact...

I think that the idea that the internetz is a public utility has merit, but I'm not sure if the private platforms like Facebook constitute the same. I'm not that familiar with the case law in this area but it seems to me that the Internet itself is the highway, while Facebook is the Woolworths sitting off of that highway. They can kick you out if you don't wear a shirt and shoes, but you can still walk down the highway in front of the place.

It's their platforms; he still has a website, he can migrate somewhere else, or just follow rules.

How is this different that Opie/Razor being banned from CS?

Frankly it's time for reality to start hitting people like Alex Jones back.

A sitting US Senator (albeit not a very bright one) is calling for the censorship of free speech. Interesting.

Baldy wrote:

A sitting US Senator (albeit not a very bright one) is calling for the censorship of free speech. Interesting.

I think I'm with you on this one. I just saw the following on Facebook:



It makes sense at first blush until you start thinking about the poor track record the government has of limiting monopolies and protecting the commons. I think the internet is a part of the commons and super important. To paraphrase my buddy, CID, it's great when your side isn't the one being censored, but the ultimate response to the above cartoon should be, 'who gets to determine you're an asshole?'

So, cs.com mods should not be allowed to ban people? Just big sites shouldn't be allowed to ban people? Or all sites?

Edit: I see now that Trip already brought this up.

Skjellyfetti wrote:So, cs.com mods should not be allowed to ban people? Just big sites shouldn't be allowed to ban people? Or all sites?

I admit it's a tough one. If you're violating someone else's rights of course. If you're breaking the law, sure. So the basic question remains who owns the internets? If Alex Jones can easily go find another provider/platform with similar exposure to carry his show than I'm ok with this.

∞∞∞ wrote:It's their platforms; he still has a website, he can migrate somewhere else, or just follow rules.

How is this different that Opie/Razor being banned from CS?

Frankly it's time for reality to start hitting people like Alex Jones back.

Here's the big problem here....these Tech companies control search engines used by the bulk of people and control platforms that most people to use to reach other people. Most people aren't going to be Tech Savvy enough to find the stuff pushed underground.

The internet is increasingly becoming the predominant medium for news, and I can't understand why liberals who are leery of increasing consolidated control of media aren't concerned about Tech companies having control over what people see. If you don't think there's a very real danger of the bar of what acceptable speech is will creep downward you haven't been paying attention the past few years.

Pwns wrote:https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/06/apple-p ... peech.html

Seen a lot of "I don't like Alex Jones, but-" today, and even several liberal youtubers I've seen have raised objections about this.

So, if we choose to agree to Chizzang's persuasive arguments that because the net infrastructure was built by the public sector that it should be a public utility, how exactly can you argue big tech companies should be able to use that infrastructure to play Ministry of Truth and ban people for vague "hate speech" criteria while claiming to have open platforms?

Also, it's kind of weird that all of these companies decided to do it at one time.

Free Speech does not equal unlimited speech. Facebook, Youtube, etc.. have a Terms of Use. If Alex Jones violated that, he should expect consequences.

And if Facebook, Youtube, etc...were serious then they'd be shutting down/punishing any person that spout hate speech, or promotes violence (Twitter will cease to exist but, c'est la vie).

Pwns wrote:
Also, it's kind of weird that all of these companies decided to do it at one time.

He threatened to kill Rober Mueller on his show last week...

Pwns wrote:

∞∞∞ wrote:It's their platforms; he still has a website, he can migrate somewhere else, or just follow rules.

How is this different that Opie/Razor being banned from CS?

Frankly it's time for reality to start hitting people like Alex Jones back.

Here's the big problem here....these Tech companies control search engines used by the bulk of people and control platforms that most people to use to reach other people. Most people aren't going to be Tech Savvy enough to find the stuff pushed underground.

The internet is increasingly becoming the predominant medium for news, and I can't understand why liberals who are leery of increasing consolidated control of media aren't concerned about Tech companies having control over what people see. If you don't think there's a very real danger of the bar of what acceptable speech is will creep downward you haven't been paying attention the past few years.

I think the answer is pretty clear: the people running those tech companies are more liberal than not. It's an advantage for the Democrats.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

Pwns wrote:
Also, it's kind of weird that all of these companies decided to do it at one time.

He threatened to kill Rober Mueller on his show last week...

Was it satire?

UNI88 wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
He threatened to kill Rober Mueller on his show last week...

Was it satire?

He was kidding. Like when a woman holds a baby and says, " I could just eat you up!"

She's not really threatening to eat the baby.

Every time I see a post about some aspect of Internet banning, I think of old Ralph, a/k/a Syntax Error.

UNI88 wrote:

Skjellyfetti wrote:
He threatened to kill Rober Mueller on his show last week...

Was it satire?

There's a lot of "missing the point" going on here...
A public Utility Structures responsibility is to provide reasonable unrestricted access to said "utility"
It is not their responsibility to tell you what you can use the provided utility for

Example:
Public Electricity Management doesn't tell you what you're allowed to use the provided electricity for
in a general sense - however they can limit your total usage in extreme cases

as well as Water Management Systems
They will occasionally set regulations on watering the lawn during a drought
but when you twist the faucet water comes out - without anybody looking over your shoulder

Youtube is not restricting anybody's access to the internet
Youtube is not an ISP or Broadband Service Provider

Chizzang wrote:Youtube is not an ISP or Broadband Service Provider

Just wait until ISPs begin to regulate websites like Infowars...

...if only there was some sort of neutral-like protection against these things.

Chizzang wrote:There's a lot of "missing the point" going on here...
A public Utility Structures responsibility is to provide reasonable unrestricted access to said "utility"
It is not their responsibility to tell you what you can use the provided utility for

Example:
Public Electricity Management doesn't tell you what you're allowed to use the provided electricity for
in a general sense - however they can limit your total usage in extreme cases

as well as Water Management Systems
They will occasionally set regulations on watering the lawn during a drought
but when you twist the faucet water comes out - without anybody looking over your shoulder

Youtube is not restricting anybody's access to the internet
Youtube is not an ISP or Broadband Service Provider

Notice I used the term "commons" instead of "utility".

What happens if a private company dominates the commons to a point where they dictate how and by whom it gets used?

Chizzang wrote:There's a lot of "missing the point" going on here...
A public Utility Structures responsibility is to provide reasonable unrestricted access to said "utility"
It is not their responsibility to tell you what you can use the provided utility for

Example:
Public Electricity Management doesn't tell you what you're allowed to use the provided electricity for
in a general sense - however they can limit your total usage in extreme cases

as well as Water Management Systems
They will occasionally set regulations on watering the lawn during a drought
but when you twist the faucet water comes out - without anybody looking over your shoulder

Youtube is not restricting anybody's access to the internet
Youtube is not an ISP or Broadband Service Provider

I would make a comparison to Uber. Yes, just because the roads were built by the public sector doesn't mean the drivers can't kick you out of their cars. But that's not a good comparison.

A more meaningful one would be that Uber is only allowing passengers to be dropped off at certain businesses for arbitrary reasons and on top of that being a major disseminator of information.

AFAIK, being an asshole is not a protected class. Alex Jones is one of the bigger ones.