So that's why Nigeria and why Naomi Wolf. I don't quite agree with you about Twitter being able to do whatever they want. Regulation of businesses is a well established practice in America for the good of the public. (Yes, I understand the downside of that, but sometimes e accept the downside when the abuse is great enough). As Twitter (…
So that's why Nigeria and why Naomi Wolf. I don't quite agree with you about Twitter being able to do whatever they want. Regulation of businesses is a well established practice in America for the good of the public. (Yes, I understand the downside of that, but sometimes e accept the downside when the abuse is great enough). As Twitter (along with Facebook, Google, and Amazon) is so big, it could be considered something of utility. So either regulation or breaking them up. However, until that happens, I'll just have to enjoy this little bit of irony.
i find the idea of "too big to be free" or "too successful for self determination" to be problematic and the idea of appeals to past practice on regulation as a justification for more in the future to be a form of logical fallacy. it's just appeal to tradition. you could have made the same argument about not allowing women to vote.
you cannot regulate your way to freedom and these policies just make the state we need to rein in more powerful and capable of future interference.
the way forward is more freedom, not less. this is the pressure that drives that evolution.
I guess I would be fine with the idea of “businesses should be free to do whatever they want” if it were applied consistently, but it’s not. Businesses are already forbidden from discriminating based on race, religion, disability, etc. so if we are going to place those restrictions on businesses I don’t see why a prohibition on discrimination based on political views or other lawful conduct shouldn’t be included in the list, particularly given that FB, TWTR have monopoly power protected by network effects (as seen by the orchestrated defenestration of Parler) and I think can rightfully be compared to common carriers in terms of an obligation not to discriminate. Or, alternatively, we could eliminate all restrictions on who businesses can do business with which I would be OK with as well — but if we have a world with some restrictions, there’s no reason to object on principle to adding more where it’s fair to do so.
I had not seen that essay before (sorry I'm too old to know the right terminology). Thanks for pointing me to it. I hope you are right and there is a way to build a decentralized internet where no one controls the keys to the kingdom and we are all free to express and ignore at our own pleasure. I guess I'm just not as optimistic as you are, but I understand. But maybe places like Substack are the beginning and I will be proven blissfully wrong.
So that's why Nigeria and why Naomi Wolf. I don't quite agree with you about Twitter being able to do whatever they want. Regulation of businesses is a well established practice in America for the good of the public. (Yes, I understand the downside of that, but sometimes e accept the downside when the abuse is great enough). As Twitter (along with Facebook, Google, and Amazon) is so big, it could be considered something of utility. So either regulation or breaking them up. However, until that happens, I'll just have to enjoy this little bit of irony.
i find the idea of "too big to be free" or "too successful for self determination" to be problematic and the idea of appeals to past practice on regulation as a justification for more in the future to be a form of logical fallacy. it's just appeal to tradition. you could have made the same argument about not allowing women to vote.
you cannot regulate your way to freedom and these policies just make the state we need to rein in more powerful and capable of future interference.
the way forward is more freedom, not less. this is the pressure that drives that evolution.
don't fight it. embrace it.
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/a-cats-tale-how-getting-canceled
I guess I would be fine with the idea of “businesses should be free to do whatever they want” if it were applied consistently, but it’s not. Businesses are already forbidden from discriminating based on race, religion, disability, etc. so if we are going to place those restrictions on businesses I don’t see why a prohibition on discrimination based on political views or other lawful conduct shouldn’t be included in the list, particularly given that FB, TWTR have monopoly power protected by network effects (as seen by the orchestrated defenestration of Parler) and I think can rightfully be compared to common carriers in terms of an obligation not to discriminate. Or, alternatively, we could eliminate all restrictions on who businesses can do business with which I would be OK with as well — but if we have a world with some restrictions, there’s no reason to object on principle to adding more where it’s fair to do so.
I had not seen that essay before (sorry I'm too old to know the right terminology). Thanks for pointing me to it. I hope you are right and there is a way to build a decentralized internet where no one controls the keys to the kingdom and we are all free to express and ignore at our own pleasure. I guess I'm just not as optimistic as you are, but I understand. But maybe places like Substack are the beginning and I will be proven blissfully wrong.