(there'll always be *some* selection bias, cause tim attracts a particular audience, and many ppl do dislike his views or the atmosphere of the server will simply not be here, but that doesn't make it an echochamber imo)

If you really want I can easily shift left to mix it up. My dad is to the left of Karl fu@king Marx I swear to God. It's my natural home if I want "comfort food". That said, I came here because my previous belief that the vast majority of America thought like me was clear and verifiably wrong. I felt like Tim spoke to me in a way I could reason in my head. So far I haven't seen him say that GLBT people have no right to exist and must be converted or erased. Many venues I just could not enter because they deny my right to individual liberty.

I can find common ground on the right on the topic of individual liberty

And thus, I am reaching out

I wish others on both sides would work to find that common ground and reach out. We might lose the asshat 10-15% on both poles, but we'd be a stronger America for it.

Unfortunately the noisy poles get the press, get the attention, and therefore drive the narrative. We end up with Republicans making their literal highest priority above everything else including basic governance to make Obama a one-term president. And 8 years later we wash-rinse-repeat with the Dems screaming bloody murder to make the same hyperbolic case to make Trump a one-termer.

"Death Panels" ~2010

"supports violence" - 2018

It's past due for regulation of some internet companies and infrastructure to ban censorship. Change my mind.

Be careful what you wish for when you invite government intervention in free enterprise - is all i can really respond with.

Businesses make the best decision they can with stakeholder value in mind

"99% of all data in USA runs through Apple, Google, Twitter, and FB. Their willingness to collaborate with the state in unethical censorship to shape public opinion forfeits their right to be considered private. They are no more private than the Federal Reserve is Federal"

The Libertarian argument that free markets will solve this problem is as of yesterday (Joyent banning Gab) a void argument. Is more government the solution? Probably not - they're not ideal role models for data privacy either. Perhaps a multi-industry oversight committee

There's no conspiracy in publicly-held other than self-interest

So you argue that the government directed that Gab get closed?

And not that publicly held companies made decisions with their valuable brand in mind?

Given he's been in office almost two years, that means Donald Trump had it out for Gab?

No - that's not the argument

I'm listening

Gab was overdue to get killed. And it had the "nazi alternative" problem already.

But it is a canary. We are rapidly approaching something far more dangerous. And realChainLight is right, given how Gab was killed (first it was removed from the Apple and Android stores, then it was successively de-funded and now kicked off by it's service provider) is a template for anything else inconvenient that comes around.

If I thought there was a good alternative to the government I'd propose it. But I'm just not seeing it. Europe is already in on the act on the side of the censors. The US is the last place where the government could be enlisted in support of free expression. Unfortunately, you need a power center. Most people don't care about censorship and when done effectively you never hear of it. The government seems the most natural power center to me.

Yes, give the government the power to decide what is or isn't censorship. That couldn't back fire

The NSA Prism Program which allowed officials to collect material including search history, the content of emails, file transfers and live chats for users of Google, Facebook, Apple and others. @wikileaks @Snowden Have both leaked mountains of data proving that the state and #BigTech collaborate against people and organizations 24/7, 365 days a year.

The people are the enemy of the state

These publishers have coordinated or collaborated the mass “deplatforming” of journalists across multiple platforms who report from their own scripts while bots, scammers, and violent terrorist groups are allowed to stay, is further proof that controlling the narrative is more important than public safety and yes Trump might not come out and say that's his position but there's people in his administration that are working to ensure a the internet is purged of wrongthink

afaic, there are three options
1. the current way: companies are allowed to censor whomever they want and don't have to give anybody a platform
2. the risky way: the government forbids unjust censorships, meaning companies are basically forced to provide their services against their will
3. the super suspicious way: the government runs its own social media platform, where *anybody* can say *anything*, so companies aren't forced to give a platform and ppl who are censored by the private sector can still have a voice... but the government has an even easier time with surveillance

the current way might suck for some people, but i'd say it's clearly the least shitty system

at least, i don't see a way around it

@Grenade123 That's a very simplistic way of looking at it. I'm saying that if a customer is denied service for an non-economic reason, the company gets a fine.

There's not too much play here from what I can tell.

~~ofc the chances are high that there's a good option i simply haven't thought of~~

What is a non-economic reason?

@shinsoo Yeah, I feel similarly. Of these I think #2 is the only real option. #1 is an oligarchy of a small number of companies and pressure groups. #3 is an oligarchy of government bureaucrats.

So companies forfiet their ability to choose who do business with?

@Grenade123 do you want to make an argument that James Wood is really costing Twitter that much money?

A man causing a scene cannot be kicked off?

I mean, that's how it works for the phone company.

You don't see much issue there.

Do you really want to argue against the baker

Yes. And quit dodging my question.

You assume I like how things currently are

In the case of the baker, there were alternatives and clear religious and free expression imperative. The baker offered to sell a standard service without issue.

The Patriot act is law now, does that mean things are okay?

Now make your argument for banning James Woods.