On Tuesday, January 12, 2021, 08:51:59 AM PST, coderman <[email protected]> wrote: >ed. note: the core issue is that Parler was effectively un-moderated. even >porn sites know you can't rely on your users to moderate themselves!
>a number of valid monopoly criticisms in here, aside: One of the few advantages of getting 'old' is that you've probably seen far more than the young'uns. From the article cited: "Critics of Silicon Valley censorship for years heard the same refrain: tech platforms like Facebook, Google and Twitter are private corporations and can host or ban whoever they want". I, and perhaps all of the people currently populating Cypherpunks, didn't see in 1950 the Hollywood blacklist. In it, ex-Communists (and probably a few not-so-ex-Communists!) were called in front of the HUAC (House UnAmerican Activities Committee) about their Communist activity. Some refused to testify, some lied. Some did time. But then, they were blacklisted: Hollywood companies refused to hire them. People today need to understand: Those doing that blacklisting were PRIVATE companies, not the government. Well, if you've heard about that at all, it's because for the next 70 years, Liberals and Leftists have continued to loudly complain that people were blacklisted. But, it is not made especially clear that PRIVATE COMPANIES were doing that blacklisting of people. Not the government. But how does anybody know about this? They, and their fellow travellers, have been so loud, they've been complaining for 70 years. I think many movies were made on the subject, even a few in the last few years. So when, quite recently, we hear that liberals and the Left think it's okay for 'a private company' to refuse to deal with anyone it wants, it's hard to avoid bursting out laughing. WHEN, exactly, did they come to this revelation? Did they suddenly decide that their 70 years of complaining about the Hollywood blacklist was wrong? Took 'em a long time, huh?!? Myself, as a lifetime libertarian, I can be very sympathetic to the idea that non-government agencies should be able to deal, and refuse to deal, with anyone they like. HOWEVER,and currently, between Google, Apple, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, and probably a few others, form a huge part of the market that is clearly controlled by a group...that was obviously acting like a cabal, when it crushed Parler. This is not what anybody should think of as being a 'normal' situation. And the behavior of these companies has been changing at a breathtaking rate, even within the last year. Put simply, they have become dangerous. And, I'd say, evil. Quite evil. I feel certain that behind the scenes, the Federal government has seriously enabling these few companies, helping them control and restrict the market for newcomer companies. Due to these companies' lobbying, the Feds promulgated Section 230, which is intended to immunize these companies from things like libel lawsuits...IF those companies don't censor. THAT'S how they earn that immunity. But for a few years, those companies have decided to start censoring, violating the deal that they requested and were eventually offered. I'll call this the "Media/Governmental Complex", after Eisenhower's "Military/Industrial Complex". And the new one is at least as dangerous as the old. Jim Bell
