Message from @Scribblehatch
Discord ID: 492309159044186113
@Poppy Rider If you want to talk about this a bit further, feel free to PM or flag me. I need to go.
real life stuff just happened.
:shirt: Check out **Tim Pool's TeeSpring Merch**:
<https://teespring.com/stores/timcast>
:dollar: Support **Tim Pool** on Patreon (exclusive rewards available):
<https://www.patreon.com/timcast>
The influencer network thing... Well, it does claim to utilise a snowball system. Which is genuinly useful to get some estimation of groups youd not gain access to such as crime syndicates. But if they did genuinly use a snowball system, how can they possibly have come across Chris Raygun but not Lacy Green?
@pratel i read your wall of messages good shit bro 👍
@Poppy Rider Poppy harlow im not for banning people when they constantly evolve terms of service
I didn't say I wanted to reg Google. My point is that the issues with Google Search are different to the issues with YT.
I wouldn't compere YT to ham. Ham is a decentralised system. You could knock out all but two nodes and it would still work. YT may be bigger than a TV net work but it works in a very similar way. We have to keep in mind that any regs put on sites like YT are going to apply to others. A no censorship policy will hurt smaller companies when the advertisers don't want their stuff associated with the extremes.
Your right YT isn't going anywhere any time soon. It runs at a massive loss already and google would be willing to absorb a bit more if it cemented them in place.
We already have antitrust and monopoly laws. You say you fear an oligarchy but that is exactly what I see happening with calls for regulation. Much like the ppl screaming for censorship then complain when they get censored, I fear demanding that YT and GS be completely open will make it to expensive for startups to get a foot hold. Creating a de-facto oligarchy anyway. We see it here in the UK, the Gov get unfavourable coverage from the BBC so they start waving the regulation stick in their face and look what happens, 8 out of 10 ppl on the BBC are anti-Brexit.
Jack declared twitter as a public square
but still people are silenced from that public square <:TimThink:482277772497125378>
The best thing we can do with Twitter now is use it as a billboard for other sites. When poeple complain that we stay within the rules and ppl don't really know what we think, 'it's a sanitised version of white supremacy' Then we tell them that what they campaigned for.
@Abel he did i memba dat and trump cant ban people so why is twatter allowed to ? And dont give me its their platform bs
It's not just "a platform" when there's literally no serious competition
It's the *only* platform
IMO, no one should be banned unless they post something actually illegal.
💯 agree ^
I like exclusivity of smart people.
So what happens if I want to start a twitter for Christian fundamentalist. It's designed to be a bubble, I don't want any disagreement to happen on my site. Am I allowed to ban ppl? Where dose your rule stand with freedom of association?
But that should be for more specific ENCLAVES.
To ban someone from the entire service is a little ridiculous.
That's how big these services are now.
They're the equivalent of every forum in the world combining into a giant ultra-forum.
Twitter wants to be known as a public utility.
The second it said that, it should've relinquished its rights to ban whoever they wanted.
And regulating them means regulating any start ups to the same degree. It could very well cement them as the public square. The only people that want that are Big Tech and the government.
Telling you, repeal section 230
II would much rather see these sites fall by their own hand so the next sites to rise don't make the same mistake. YT and Twitter could very easily say that they need more gov hand outs to protect the service. This is not good for compation.
@Poppy Rider if you claim to be a piblic square you are a public square, if you want to create a platform for christians then your platform is not really public
So if you create legislation following those guidelines, all any of the companies has to do is stop calling themselves a public square, which would make it pointless.
Im fine with that then they can reap the benefits of not being a public square like not recieving tax dollars
Unless im misinformed on this
If they are receiving tax dollars the I would argue that stop regardless.
@Grenade123 Why do you think repealing 230 is a good idea?
It means they need to stop moderating their platform or be treated as a publisher and therefore liable for what is said.
Basically it makes Twitter liable for slander rather than the person saying it.
Etc
230 protects them from being liable.
If that happens everyone would get banned @Grenade123
And Twitter would be dead
If you take it away it means the sites are responceable for what is said.