The site says you're using Algorand. When everyone is using Ethereum, why go against the grain?
> You want to take that away from me while pretending to do it for the greater good, when in reality it’s just a selfish desire to impose your will on others. Let's call a spade, a spade. Your position appears to be "I…
> I do not want sideloading, I do not want alternative stores, I do not want the so-called “healthy competition”. Good. Don't use them. Do you use every single feature of your phone? Of course not. There are probably…
And what do you do when your webhost becomes your moderator and deplatforms your site, on the exact same day? We can take this all the way to fabricating wires to build computers to make our own servers; at some point…
For someone whose username is 'quotemstr' (quote master), that post is a great, short explanation of that idea and very.. quotable.
> But the thought of a government body deciding when a company may and may not enforce its rules is chilling. In general I agree with you; I only consider this kind of thinking valid at Twitter/FB/Google/AWS scale -…
> The slippery slope argument is generally regarded as a logical fallacy because the argument can be applied to anything. Can you expand on this? I've seen the claim several times, but given the fact that (in general,…
Not impossible at all, just an incredibly... very.. bad... scary.. idea.
I literally started asking around on the web for exactly this today. Seriously taking a look, this looks promising. We built an app on AppSync and Cognito and I want to get off AWS so I'm looking for alternatives, and…
Free speech is not a right granted by the government, it is a principle and a natural right. We all have it. The government has nothing to do with it. Even if we all lived in anarchy, free speech would still be a thing.
I found their response underwhelming as well. I am tentatively willing to accept that these are simply applications of free speech and section 230, provided that the EFF prompt governments to write legal frameworks for…
You kicking someone out of your house doesn't change the fundamental balance of society. AWS, Apple and Google deciding on behalf of 3 billion people what they're allowed to read, most certainly does.
No it absolutely does not.
You missed the point. Scale is what matters, not privacy. The Supreme Court has ruled that free speech on private property is still protected when questions of scale are introduced. There are circumscriptions on that,…
> No, everybody is. In a democratic society, it is the responsibility of every citizen and corporation to act in accordance with democratic values. Exactly, everybody is. In a democratic society, everybody decides…
Exactly because right now, between Apple, Google and AWS, several billion people have had a decision made for them. That looks like government behavior to me.
Amazon made the decision to change that calculation and in this case, whataboutism is perfectly valid.
Your house is not the same thing as Twitter or Parler or Amazon or Apple.
This is what the companies do who want to take down copyrighted content, and what governments do when they want to take down illegal content. Why should any other standard apply? Typically in such cases posts are placed…
It's not their platform, they don't get to see how it is moderated. We do, the people. You know those things we pass called laws? Yeah that determines how moderation needs to happen. Not other companies.
No seriously how deep does this go? Private internet? Balkanize the world so that the only possible outcome is war? This isn't being thought through.
And yet somehow have never resorted to saying who can and cannot use their service based on their political beliefs. Keep trying.
Absolutely but the platform isn't doing the amplification, people do. This is the same thing as someone copying your chant on a street in front of a courthouse. The street isn't doing the amplifying, the people are.
> You have never had the right of free speech on someone else’s property. Wrong. You always do. They simply have free speech too.
If there were a large, vibrant community of public squares, I'd very much agree with you; the problem is that the network effect means that there will only ever be 2-3 big ones. It's a form of natural monopoly if not…
The site says you're using Algorand. When everyone is using Ethereum, why go against the grain?
> You want to take that away from me while pretending to do it for the greater good, when in reality it’s just a selfish desire to impose your will on others. Let's call a spade, a spade. Your position appears to be "I…
> I do not want sideloading, I do not want alternative stores, I do not want the so-called “healthy competition”. Good. Don't use them. Do you use every single feature of your phone? Of course not. There are probably…
And what do you do when your webhost becomes your moderator and deplatforms your site, on the exact same day? We can take this all the way to fabricating wires to build computers to make our own servers; at some point…
For someone whose username is 'quotemstr' (quote master), that post is a great, short explanation of that idea and very.. quotable.
> But the thought of a government body deciding when a company may and may not enforce its rules is chilling. In general I agree with you; I only consider this kind of thinking valid at Twitter/FB/Google/AWS scale -…
> The slippery slope argument is generally regarded as a logical fallacy because the argument can be applied to anything. Can you expand on this? I've seen the claim several times, but given the fact that (in general,…
Not impossible at all, just an incredibly... very.. bad... scary.. idea.
I literally started asking around on the web for exactly this today. Seriously taking a look, this looks promising. We built an app on AppSync and Cognito and I want to get off AWS so I'm looking for alternatives, and…
Free speech is not a right granted by the government, it is a principle and a natural right. We all have it. The government has nothing to do with it. Even if we all lived in anarchy, free speech would still be a thing.
I found their response underwhelming as well. I am tentatively willing to accept that these are simply applications of free speech and section 230, provided that the EFF prompt governments to write legal frameworks for…
You kicking someone out of your house doesn't change the fundamental balance of society. AWS, Apple and Google deciding on behalf of 3 billion people what they're allowed to read, most certainly does.
No it absolutely does not.
You missed the point. Scale is what matters, not privacy. The Supreme Court has ruled that free speech on private property is still protected when questions of scale are introduced. There are circumscriptions on that,…
> No, everybody is. In a democratic society, it is the responsibility of every citizen and corporation to act in accordance with democratic values. Exactly, everybody is. In a democratic society, everybody decides…
Exactly because right now, between Apple, Google and AWS, several billion people have had a decision made for them. That looks like government behavior to me.
Amazon made the decision to change that calculation and in this case, whataboutism is perfectly valid.
Your house is not the same thing as Twitter or Parler or Amazon or Apple.
This is what the companies do who want to take down copyrighted content, and what governments do when they want to take down illegal content. Why should any other standard apply? Typically in such cases posts are placed…
It's not their platform, they don't get to see how it is moderated. We do, the people. You know those things we pass called laws? Yeah that determines how moderation needs to happen. Not other companies.
No seriously how deep does this go? Private internet? Balkanize the world so that the only possible outcome is war? This isn't being thought through.
And yet somehow have never resorted to saying who can and cannot use their service based on their political beliefs. Keep trying.
Absolutely but the platform isn't doing the amplification, people do. This is the same thing as someone copying your chant on a street in front of a courthouse. The street isn't doing the amplifying, the people are.
> You have never had the right of free speech on someone else’s property. Wrong. You always do. They simply have free speech too.
If there were a large, vibrant community of public squares, I'd very much agree with you; the problem is that the network effect means that there will only ever be 2-3 big ones. It's a form of natural monopoly if not…