Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think that classic liberalism is more at odds with Trump's agenda than it was with Obama's.
Sure, I don't disagree.
I don't really care about Obama and Trump. I had no love for the former and have none for the latter. There's a lot more going on in the world and with people than two politicians. I'm more interested in culture, philosophy, social interactions, objectiveness, and the world of ideas, and more concerned about long-term trends than where we are in August 2017.
What happened to the conservative love for the free market and the rights of private businesses? At any time a member of the alt-right is free to open their own tech company that will serve the hate speech market niche.
Also too, how is this an assault on the 1st Amendment when we are discussing the actions of a privately owned business like Google or Paypal?
It's funny, isn't it, how people believe that they are entitled to use these private enterprises at will.
Anyone who chooses to have any one of these accounts does so voluntarily and as per the standards and conditions specified by each provider.
Every single one of them has the right to terminate service at any time for any reason.
Says so right in their user agreements.
It's pretty clear that Geller has a poor understanding of the 1st amendment since none of these entities represent the government.
That sense of entitlement has clearly clouded her brain.
Think!!! Don't any of you leftists know how to think?
Do we have a right to free speech in America, or don't we? Or is that right dependent upon whether someone who is hosting a forum agrees with our point of view? That seems to be the case more and more often.
I don't remember reading in the Constitution that free speech only applied if you owned the printing press. Speech can be written or oral. If written, and one has access to an open forum such as a medium like Facebook, I don't think Facebook should be allowed to take your post down simply on the basis that they don't like the message. Vulgarity, etc. is another matter.
I have a friend on Facebook who often writes about Islam. She has been put in "Facebook jail" numerous times simply because Facebook doesn't like her opinion of Islam.
Publishing houses reject thousands of manuscripts every year.
There is not a single publisher that HAS TO publish every book, article, etc. that is offered.
NOT ONE.
This is no different.
People are allowed to join FB under certain conditions. No one is compelled to have a FB account.
Anyone/everyone who posts on FB does so at FB's pleasure.
Zuckerberg could shut it all down tomorrow and he would be completely within his rights to do so.
Again, FB is NOT the government.
Why is that so hard to comprehend?
Publishing houses reject thousands of manuscripts every year.
There is not a single publisher that HAS TO publish every book, article, etc. that is offered.
NOT ONE.
This is no different.
People are allowed to join FB under certain conditions. No one is compelled to have a FB account.
Anyone/everyone who posts on FB does so at FB's pleasure.
Zuckerberg could shut it all down tomorrow and he would be completely within his rights to do so.
Again, FB is NOT the government.
Why is that so hard to comprehend?
Nailed it. Think of any social media site (including City-Data) as a cocktail party in a private home. Their home, their rules.
Anybody who thinks Facebook, Google or PayPal is a monopoly clearly doesn't understand the meaning of the word. All of those companies have lots of competition. They are simply the market leader in their spaces, and there's no law against that. Can you imagine if there were?
Anybody who thinks Facebook, Google or PayPal is a monopoly clearly doesn't understand the meaning of the word. All of those companies have lots of competition. They are simply the market leader in their spaces, and there's no law against that. Can you imagine if there were?
Seems there's quite a few people salivating at the thought.
I didn't say anything about "right-wing". I just disagreed with the claim that the pioneers weren't traditionalists. However, I also disagree with your false dichotomy between "traditionalists" and "progressives". Progress comes from building on tradition, not from destroying it.
First, thank you for the suggested reading. It was pretty interesting and brought back some fond (and not so fond) memories of some of my EE classes.
In terms of innovation and tradition, that article seems to call out how Noyce and company actually eschewed traditional business culture. Regarding his personal life, it also mentions changes like how "Noyce had started drifting away from Congregationalism and the whole matter of churchgoing". Similarly there wasn't much on Licklider's views, but he also appeared to drift away from religion, even though his father was a minister.
I'm not sure these are the examples of traditionalists that you believe they are.
So far I'm not hearing of anything that is a true monopoly. Economies of Scale maybe (I remembered something from business class). That just means they are able to offer lower prices to the consumer due to their high production or buying volume.
As Dane in LA said, monopolies have to do with infrastructure: Phone lines, cable lines, electricity, or water. It wouldn't be practical to duplicate these services every time there is a new competitor.
Google, Facebook, Amazon, they're just content providers is all, and not an integral backbone of the WWW.
It does make me curious how a search engine actually works though. I'm taking network courses at college so this stuff is of great interest to me.
I get the delight left-leaning commenters are taking in these increasingly powerful tech giants taking steps to deplatform their ideological opponents and then whipping out the "private company can do anything and everything they want" and "guess conservatives are hypocrites" memes. I really really get it.
Do any of those who are suddenly big fans of laissez-faire and global megacorporate power think there could ever be a time in the future, when technology is ten times as prevalent as it is today (and we're ten times as dependent on it), where it might be a concern that one colossalcorp owns the entire metaverse where, say, 70% of future humans' activities and interactions take place, and could make arbitrary rules that would greatly impact lives just based on not liking the ideas or thoughts of certain people? I'm just curious.
You think it's okay because they'll still just be smiting your enemies? Well what assurances do you have that you or your descendants would be able to keep up and tow the ideological vanguard into the decades to come such that you and they would avoid being de-personed for your thoughts?
--------------------------------------
Here's another angle: one can have a concern for something without necessarily seeking GOVERNMENT coercion and force as the remedy for it. I wouldn't be shocked if Youtube, Patreon, PayPal, Twitter, and others became more aggressive in the next few years, deactivating and banning people like Dave Cullen, Independent Man, Sargon, SomeBlackGuy, Bearing, Tim Pool, Truthstream, etc. who are critical of the regressive left and don't subscribe to the social justice narrative.
I can criticize what they've already done and what they'll probably do more of in the future WITHOUT it being a call to government action. I can think it's a shame, a terrible direction, worrisome, and disappointing, and talk about that. I wouldn't be too terribly surprised if other companies like Lyft, Airbnb, Reddit, Google, even Samsung, Sony, Microsoft, Amazon, Nintendo etc. also started to use big data connections to exclude certain people. Hell, I think it's conceivable even stores, restaurants, banks, etc. might one day only serve people with the *right* ideas.
--------------------------------------
We have to realize we're entering uncharted territory through technology, both on a macro level and at a micro level. This was by me from the Airbnb thread and I think it's somewhat related:
Quote:
A woman walks into a restaurant in the year 2037. The restaurant owner's AR glasses immediately identify her and flag several things in her internet history that he has set as things he doesn't like. He decides he's not going to serve her because she supported a political candidate five years earlier that he didn't like. He asks her to leave.
We've entered this weird reality where eventually *anything* you've ever said or liked or maybe even looked at could be held against you, and yes it's perfectly legal. What an experiment. And think what POWER the tech mega-giants have if they start doing litmus tests on the Entire History of You and using anything they might find to exclude you.
And I liked this by TDE:
Quote:
Where will good customs and laws come from, ultimately, if not people's considered ideas about what is right and what is wrong? How can we ever hope to arrive at a good situation, as a democratic society, if people won't even think about what that situation should look like?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
). That just means they are able to offer lower prices to the consumer due to their high production or buying volume.
