Democrat threat to freedom of speech?

[parousia70]

Microsoft Azure, Amazon and Google dominate the hosting environment for IAAS, PAAS and SAAS. They have a global infrastructure that is superior to all the alternatives. Their decision making is commercially based. If they think hosting extremists is bad for business they delete them, because they look bad for their brand. They have allowed things like Parler because they were afraid of what Trump would do if they did not. But now that he has lost the election and is losing power they feel free to get rid of his more extreme and violent supporters from their networks. I may agree with their repugnance and even their commercial sense and still worry about the implications for freedom of speech of having brand image and commercial considerations as the primary reasons for allowing someone to speak or not. Yes people can move to alternate hosting platforms but they will not provide the global reach and range of services these 3 companies provide. Certain positions will be marginalized. No one likes fascists or racists or deluded conspiracy nuts, but what happens when Christians become bad for business - what then? The monopoly power of Big Tech to control the conversation for purely commercial or branding reasons is a background issue here.

You can thank the history of deregulation brought to you by 40 years of conservative Reaganonics for manifesting this reality.

 

[Thomas White]

Microsoft Azure, Amazon and Google dominate the hosting environment for IAAS, PAAS and SAAS. They have a global infrastructure that is superior to all the alternatives. Their decision making is commercially based. If they think hosting extremists is bad for business they delete them, because they look bad for their brand. They have allowed things like Parler because they were afraid of what Trump would do if they did not. But now that he has lost the election and is losing power they feel free to get rid of his more extreme and violent supporters from their networks. I may agree with their repugnance and even their commercial sense and still worry about the implications for freedom of speech of having brand image and commercial considerations as the primary reasons for allowing someone to speak or not. Yes people can move to alternate hosting platforms but they will not provide the global reach and range of services these 3 companies provide. Certain positions will be marginalized. No one likes fascists or racists or deluded conspiracy nuts, but what happens when Christians become bad for business - what then? The monopoly power of Big Tech to control the conversation for purely commercial or branding reasons is a background issue here.

It is their RIGHT to do so. If the government starts taking away rights, where does it end?

 

[mindlight]

It is their RIGHT to do so. If the government starts taking away rights, where does it end?

Not really about rights though is it, more about the growing threat of monopoly power to freedom of speech. Freedom for trillion dollar businesses versus the freedom of the little guy who simply wants to speak his mind.

 

[parousia70]

Not really about rights though is it, more about the growing threat of monopoly power to freedom of speech. Freedom for trillion dollar businesses versus the freedom of the little guy who simply wants to speak his mind.

Think of it like this:

Big Tech = Christian Bakery
and
Donald Trump = Gay Wedding Cake

 

[SummerMadness]

Where is the government censoring speech here?

No answer? Right... free speech is not being censored. Free speech is not the same thing as freedom from consequences.

 

[SummerMadness]

Not really about rights though is it, more about the growing threat of monopoly power to freedom of speech. Freedom for trillion dollar businesses versus the freedom of the little guy who simply wants to speak his mind.

You can scream your views in the public square. That looks a lot like your speech is not being censored. No one is obligated to give you a megaphone.

 

[parousia70]

Not really about rights though is it, more about the growing threat of monopoly power to freedom of speech. Freedom for trillion dollar businesses versus the freedom of the little guy who simply wants to speak his mind.

Seriously, you can thank 40 years of conservative, Reaganomic, deregulation for this, and the SCOTUS citizens united decision that said Money = Speech.

Conservatives have spent 40 years methodically creating this monster, and NOW they're screaming a warning from the rooftops?

 

[Thomas White]

Not really about rights though is it, more about the growing threat of monopoly power to freedom of speech. Freedom for trillion dollar businesses versus the freedom of the little guy who simply wants to speak his mind.

So you think the government should tell a private company that it has to host everyone on its platform?

 

[Semper-Fi]

Truth is absolute. It's reality. It does not change because you don't like it or wish there was more to it. However, people will try to get you to believe otherwise to push an agenda or cause chaos.

absolute truth? does not change?

Well the absolute truth is God made just 2 genders,
but now they teach kids they can explore what ever
gender identity they want to be that day.


Did God not make only 2 genders at creation week ?
Basic Biology, Why is this truth being changed.
64 Terms That Describe Gender Identity and Expression

Now they teach kids in school not to use words
like father, mother, or son and daughter, or boy- girl.

Now the terms Father and Mother, sons and daughters
are being striped from our government.

These are some changes and attacks that are sure
to be influnenced by the devil. He is a lier and
hates Gods Ordained Family structure.


31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother,
and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
-

They are forcing gender neutral pronouns on us, but this
does not change the truth about the family structure.

 

[Thomas White]

absolute truth? does not change?

Well the absolute truth is God made just 2 genders,
but now they teach kids they can explore what ever
gender identity they want to be that day.


Did God not make only 2 genders at creation week ?
Basic Biology, Why is this truth being changed.
64 Terms That Describe Gender Identity and Expression

Now they teach kids in school not to use words
like father, mother, or son and daughter, or boy- girl.

Now the terms Father and Mother, sons and daughters
are being striped from our government.

These are some changes and attacks that are sure
to be influnenced by the devil. He is a lier and
hates Gods Ordained Family structure.


31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother,
and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
-

They are forcing gender neutral pronouns on us, but this
does not change the truth about the family structure.

Your argument supports mine...

 

[Chrystal-J]

Why not? I see plenty of people doing it as we speak? Don't call for violence and you're good.

What if a felon wanted to move into a house and the neighborhood city counsel decided that this person was a threat because he spoke "hatefully". Would they be allowed to ban them from buying a house?

 

[Semper-Fi]

Just one letter it took

Michelle Obama Urges Social Media Companies
To Permanently Ban Trump

 

[Thomas White]

What if a felon wanted to move into a house and the neighborhood city counsel decided that this person was a threat because he spoke "hatefully". Would they be allowed to ban them from buying a house?

That is beyond the scope of municipal government.

 

[Chrystal-J]

That is beyond the scope of municipal government.

Not really. The city outside of Detroit used to have a "points system" as to who they will sell too. Using Home Owners Associations to hide behind.

 

[Semper-Fi]

Beginning to Look Like It’s Time to Invent Another Internet
Beginning to Look Like It’s Time to Invent Another Internet


Vivek Ramaswamy and Jed Rubenfeld wrote in the Wall Street Journal that Google, Facebook and Twitter should be “treated as state actors under existing legal doctrines” because they have been “co-opted” by Congress to “do through the back door what government cannot directly accomplish under the Constitution.”
Opinion | Save the Constitution From Big Tech

 

[Thomas White]

Beginning to Look Like It’s Time to Invent Another Internet
Beginning to Look Like It’s Time to Invent Another Internet


Vivek Ramaswamy and Jed Rubenfeld wrote in the Wall Street Journal that Google, Facebook and Twitter should be “treated as state actors under existing legal doctrines” because they have been “co-opted” by Congress to “do through the back door what government cannot directly accomplish under the Constitution.”
Opinion | Save the Constitution From Big Tech

There is no precedent or legal mechanism for that to happen.

 

[mindlight]

Think of it like this:

Big Tech = Christian Bakery
and
Donald Trump = Gay Wedding Cake

You made me think, hence the slow reply. Is it the same principle that governs both? Is the size of entity irrelevant, the same principles and laws govern both afterall.

In terms of law there is no difference but there is a difference in terms of impact. Three companies dominate the hosting industry: Microsoft, Amazon and Google. These companies are massive and have global influence. If they get rid of a group from their platforms then that has an impact because their services are so much better and globally significant. This is not a legal thing, it is an impact assessment. Only governments the size of major governments or groups of governments can hold Big Tech to account. The EU regulate Big Techs usage of user data with GDPR to protect users from defamation, manipulation, harm and exploitation by companies misusing their data. This is a protection of users from harm but does nothing to help or hinder their actual opportunities or freedom of expression for example.

This cannot be dealt with with monopoly/cartel laws that look into whether certain companies are now acting in cohort because those laws do not apply on non commercial impacts.

Big Tech have broken no laws and you do not want to penalise small companies with any new laws but there is a restriction of freedom of opportunity here because of the monopoly power of Big Tech companies acting in coordinated way. This is a hole in the current regulation in my view.

 

[mindlight]

There is no precedent or legal mechanism for that to happen.

There was no protection of user info before GDPR from Big Tech. Non commercial coordination between Big Tech companies with effective monopoly power can influence the political climate in a way that state actors might not be entirely happy with. But few, outside the USA, really care this power has been used against Trump.

 

[mindlight]

So you think the government should tell a private company that it has to host everyone on its platform?

Trillion dollar businesses coordinating to marginalise a political group is an exercise of monopoly power not covered by existing laws. But no one elected these companies to determine our political futures. I am not sure what the answer is here and do not want laws that force a provider to provide a service. But none of these companies had a problem providing that service before they didn't so this is a different kind of scenario to a genuine moral objection as in the case of a Christian bakery and gay wedding cakes. This is Big Tech sniffing the wind and smelling Trump leaving and then playing their cards to position themselves for the new era, for commercial and brand image motivations. But their decisions have political impacts that matter and which exceed their actual right to make them on the political level. It is a dilemma.

 

[Thomas White]

Trillion dollar businesses coordinating to marginalise a political group is an exercise of monopoly power not covered by existing laws. But no one elected these companies to determine our political futures. I am not sure what the answer is here and do not want laws that force a provider to provide a service. But none of these companies had a problem providing that service before they didn't so this is a different kind of scenario to a genuine moral objection as in the case of a Christian bakery and gay wedding cakes. This is Big Tech sniffing the wind and smelling Trump leaving and then playing their cards to position themselves for the new era, for commercial and brand image motivations. But their decisions have political impacts that matter and which exceed their actual right to make them on the political level. It is a dilemma.

So do you believe the government should regulate their actions and require them to host everyone?