Message from @Abel
Discord ID: 492297042316623872
Lots of things they mention
Colonel:You exercise your right to "freedom" and this is the result.
All rhetoric to avoid conflict and protect each other from hurt.
The untested truths spun by different interests continue to churn and accumulate in the sandbox of political correctness and value systems.
Rose:Everyone withdraws into their own small gated community, afraid of a larger forum.
They stay inside their little ponds,
leaking whatever "truth" suits them into the growing cesspool of society at large.
but thats how its always been
Well that's just a piece of the dialogue
But anyway
This sounds pretty bad. I think this has more to do with EU rather than Big Tech. Getting a government involved in being able to tell these companies what to do is not the answer.
who komm susser todd rn
<:reimusun:319184406340173824> 🔫 ✝
Internet constitution! 😛
only solution
Doc, who do you trust to write one? Reddit? 4chan? Congress? If the US writes it the EU will just write their own.
If Silicon Valley was smart they would only censor illegal content period .
They want to make money 💰 not police people
they ain't smart, they are greedy
and Nazis
im not worried about silicon valley probs gonna end up in the ocean soon anyways
<a:Water:393797164192759813>
I'd trust anyone to write one @Poppy Rider ,
If what is written is neutral enough, fair enough and solid enough so its not to be abused is a different issue.
Remember, even the US constitution wasn't completed when it was first accepted, what with amendments still being added
But it's a better approach than letting them freely take peoples speech away in favor of others,
And to "regulate" only leaves them open to whoever is in charge to call the shots.
You need a bill of rights, not a system of regulation
I would tend to agree but we are not in the good old days. I don't really mind YT or FB banning ppl, it sucks and it's unfair but it's not the end of the world, the net is a big place. I think a site like YT has the right to remove anyone for anyreason and I would not like that right taken away through regulation or a bill of rights.
I think we can all agree that government regulation is possibly the worst thing that can happen here. But a bill of rights is not much different. Look at the people in power, the people that would be writing it and voting on it. These people can not be trusted with such an important task right now.
FB is falling out of favour in the west and it's a trend that will happen in Africa as well. I think we should ride this out for a decade or so and see where the chips land.
We are like a toddler right now that's learning to run, we need to be allowed to fall over a few times.
Tbh, I think government regulation is required. Youtube and twitter have way too big of a monopoly on online speech
That's nonsense. The tech industry has formed a kind of cartel and if it is allowed to, it is completely possible to seal a given website off the net. Google search alone makes or breaks businesses.
The question is Youtube more of a newspaper or more like a telephone. I think the answer there is obvious. Google makes very little content on it's own and is really just hosting and indexing content for other people. It's much more like a telephone or the postal mail. We wouldn't claim that AT&T has a "right to deny phone service for any reason." We also know what happens when the telecoms are allowed to cheat--They elected the only president to have lost a majority of the electorate and get elected anyway by leaking information to their preferred political party.
When big companies like Google or Western Union can essentially dictate democracy by simply refusing service, it becomes a question of whether we really live in a free state.
As it is, Europe is regulating the internet but Europe doesn't have the same commitment to freedom of speech the US does. The US *must* counter-regulate.
As I see it "where the chips land" likely involves a de-facto oligarchy. That should really be avoided.
When you are talking on the phone to are not broadcasting your self to the world. YT is far more of a newspaper or free TV network and they absolutely have the right to say what is and is not shown.
Google is a different story.
Now you're being really odd. How do you plan to regulate Google but not Youtube?
I'd say it would make more sense to be reversed. Google Search is extremely hard to regulate, let's put it aside for a bit. Google is just a company, it's not the company that's the problem, it's the behavior.
YouTube is much more of a platform. A newspaper has an editor and a very limited number of articles a day. YouTube is automated and houses exabytes of videos uploaded by people so other people can watch them. If you want an idea of broadcasting yourself to the world, think then of ham radio. Youtube is much closer to infrastructure (a telephone) than a meticulously curated product produced by a dedicated team of people. It also serves as a public square, which makes the "broadcasting" argument against regulation even more dubious.
In the US, there is an argument that it is not really justified to use land control to completely disrupt political speech and organization.
Telecoms are explicitly not allowed to deny phone service for this very reason.
*some exceptions for economic arguments, like cost of laying wire and serving an area. Usually there's some kind of government deal in these cases to cover the costs.
YouTube at scale shouldn't really have these kinds of limits, so a blanket "no censorship" rule (with some minor, specific exceptions like stuff that's illegal) is practical.
You aren't going to just replace YouTube either. The network effects are strong. And there is a strong viewer-producer migration issue. YouTube would have to become nigh unusable to trigger a mass migration.
We also have seen what happened when Gab tried to replace Twitter. It's on neither the Apple nor Android store.
And then there's Freestrtr, and it's only a matter of time before they come for BitChute and Minds.
Again, Google can make stuff effectively vanish by removing it from search. Or removing it from the Android store.
TODAY IS THE DAY
In the 90s, Microsoft got broken up in an antitrust suit for bundling a browser with an OS. Now we live in walled gardens of curated apps where the platform has unlimited power to decide who can and cannot do business..
When Android has 80% of the market, and Apple has roughly the other 20%, this is a problem.
And the two companies have something of a revolving door of people.
But that requires regulation of the apple/android store. Not necessarily regulation of Apple or Google themselves.
@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>