Read on Twitter
The private platform argument in defense of censorship by opinion-forming monopolies like Facebook makes about as much sense as a defense of the expropriation of a minority on the basis of a democratic decision.
Part of what makes Western countries especially livable is that they are democratic market economies. But, although important, that's not their decisive feature. What makes them different is the rule of law that protects certain inalienable rights.
When left unchecked, both democracy and capitalism are susceptible to tyranny. The former is susceptible to a tyranny of the majority while the latter is susceptible to a tyranny of monopolies or cartels.
If the rule of law ends at private properties then our freedom is proportional to our ability to avoid monopolies and cartels and their authoritarian system of arbitrary and inconsistently applied laws that we cannot change.
A constitutional democracy must make sure that its justice monopoly remains intact. If private monopolies or cartels insulate the majority of the population from the rule of law then they must either be regulated or broken up.
To be clear, I am not generally in favor of regulations. The fewer, the better. But there are exceptions.
We can probably all agree that it would be outright crazy to allow anyone to handle certain aerosol-transmissible pathogens. In this case, we demand strict regulations. This is because we know that if something goes wrong, it might affect a lot of people, including us.
I believe that certain algorithms, such as Google's search algorithm, which affect billions of people, are also one of those exceptions. We need to make sure that these algorithms are not abused for large scale public opinion manipulations.
We need to enforce the transparency, verifiability, accountability, and security of these algorithms.
The situation right now is that food trucks are better regulated than the products of companies that can affect election outcomes, cause mass panics or even nuclear wars by a post in the name of a head of state or by sending a few billion people a message about imminent doom.
I believe that freedom of speech is another such exception. Most human interactions increasingly happen on a handful of privately owned platforms. They are opinion-forming monopolies. Who controls what opinions are allowed on these platforms controls what people know and believe.
Constitutionally legal speech must be protected. We cannot allow private companies to decide who is allowed to have how much influence and what legal information the public can access.
My position: If your bakery is a monopoly or part of a cartel, if it's practically impossible to avoid without incurring huge losses, then it shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on ethnicity, ideological or sexual orientation. Otherwise, they should be able to do so.
Nine reasons why tech markets are winner-take-all https://www.london.edu/lbsr/nine-reasons-why-tech-markets-are-winner-take-all
Will capitalism’s ability to innovate, destroy and reinvent itself eventually take care of the tech giants’ market dominance? Unlikely, because the combination of winner-take-all factors is so powerful.
Will capitalism’s ability to innovate, destroy and reinvent itself eventually take care of the tech giants’ market dominance? Unlikely, because the combination of winner-take-all factors is so powerful.
To Break Google’s Monopoly on Search, Make Its Index Public https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-07-15/to-break-google-s-monopoly-on-search-make-its-index-public
"The 3 biggest threats that Google/Facebook pose to societies worldwide: surveillance/suppression of content/subtle manipulation of the thinking and behavior of more than 2.5 billion people."
"The 3 biggest threats that Google/Facebook pose to societies worldwide: surveillance/suppression of content/subtle manipulation of the thinking and behavior of more than 2.5 billion people."
"It is vital to our democracy that big tech companies can’t affect the outcome of elections." https://twitter.com/TulsiGabbard/status/1154444505090629633
Australia to police tech giants' algorithms https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49125845
> "These companies are among the most powerful and valuable in the world," said Australian treasurer Josh Frydenberg.
> "They need to be held to account and their activities need to be more transparent."
> "These companies are among the most powerful and valuable in the world," said Australian treasurer Josh Frydenberg.
> "They need to be held to account and their activities need to be more transparent."
Censorship is outsourced to private companies that control the vast majority of all speech. They exploit the libertarian naivety about private property rights in order to circumvent constitutional protections of basic rights. https://twitter.com/mr_scientism/status/1175510137919987712
China is the utility monster of capitalism https://twitter.com/nic__carter/status/1182283126963396609
Replacing a black box of corporate justice with mob justice isn't the way to go.
Freedom is a delicate balance of power between the state, corporations, and society. Imbalance can lead to political despotism, foreign domination, business oligarchy, or the tyranny of the masses.
Freedom is a delicate balance of power between the state, corporations, and society. Imbalance can lead to political despotism, foreign domination, business oligarchy, or the tyranny of the masses.
Why reputation systems should not employ downvotes https://axisofordinary.tumblr.com/post/189232449233/why-reputation-systems-should-not-employ-downvotes
By providing a negative incentive, downvotes will oppress legitimate dissent by (unconsciously) leading people to either agree or stay silent.
By providing a negative incentive, downvotes will oppress legitimate dissent by (unconsciously) leading people to either agree or stay silent.
Cory Doctorow: Inaction is a Form of Action https://locusmag.com/2020/01/cory-doctorow-inaction-is-a-form-of-action/
That the political left is only interested in gagging their ideological enemies can be inferred from their contradictory stances on regulating opinion-forming monopolies.
They are selectively libertarian and argue that private companies can exercise property rights when conservatives bemoan discrimination. Yet when Zuckerberg says that Facebook shouldn’t be the arbiter of truth, the tone suddenly becomes much harsher towards these behemoths.
We indeed need to regulate these platforms but to ensure a level playing field, to protect free speech and the sovereignty of the law. We need to extend net neutrality to encompass social networks so that they must treat all expressions of opinion equally.
True. But it doesn't matter whether it's China or domestic SJWs.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-the-uk-should-consider-banning-tiktok
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-the-uk-should-consider-banning-tiktok
