Hacker News Reader

Comment by gnaritas | Hacker News Reader

> This specific part (that dominant companies can ban individuals with no recourse) shouldn't be tolerated.

Freedom shouldn't be tolerated, really? We should force private companies in the private market to serve you because why?

View on HN

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15585321 and marked it off-topic.

Boo, your moderation has utterly ruined HN. People can't even disagree anymore without you interfering. I'd be willing to bet there's more interesting content in all the detached threads than the content that survives your censorship. HN was a better site before you became a mod.

You've routinely violated HN's rules, we've given you countless warnings and requests to stop, and you've responded by being nasty and abusive. I'm not quite sure why we bent the rules for you as long as we did [1] but enough is enough and we've banned this account.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12309403, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15107762, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14608370, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10819316, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10252505, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10065872, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9404465, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7824349

Confirmed, you suck as a moderator. Can't take any critique, no, must be my fault you're such a snowflake. You're quite literally what's wrong with society these days, you outright reject anything that might potentially hurt your feelings; you don't have a right to not be offended you overly sensitive little fucking man baby. Grow some balls you poor excuse for a man.

Because those private companies earn unspeakable wealth off the societal infrastructure we have built and provide them with. They would be nothing without the shoulders of giants they are standing on. Those giants are us, collectively, which is required to negotiate with them since an individual is completely powerless against them.

I gotta say this breathless free-market purse clutching is getting a bit tiresome.

Once companies gain enough monopolistic control and power over their customers/users/market, they essentially function as government entities, and should be restricted and regulated as we would restrict and regulate the government.

None of these companies have a monopoly, and even if they did monopolies should only be regulated when they sell things we must have to live. Monopolies for luxury things are not a problem. Access to google and facebook are not essential things you need.

Access to information is not a luxury.

Google and Facebook appropriated the natural course of the evolution of information exchange between humans and should be regulated.

You don't need access to Google and Facebook to access information, there is an entire giant network out there for sharing information beyond Google and Facebook; there is zero valid reason to regulate these companies.

Except they try to keep users out of these networks and inside their platforms while having an absolute market share.

Every monopoly should be regulated and, preferably, broke up.

> Every monopoly should be regulated and, preferably, broke up.

No, they shouldn't be and the law doesn't agree with you. You have to be a bad actor before such laws apply, you shouldn't be broken up merely because no one else can compete.

> You have to be a bad actor

It's just a matter of time – their bad acting grows and it has become more visible already.

Ah the slippery slope, so basically you have no real argument then. We should punish them because they might do something wrong in the future, got it.

Because the public has a right to regulate private companies or, indeed, restrict freedoms of private individuals, if it so chooses.

Private companies don't have the "freedom" to dump chemicals into rivers (or they shouldn't), they don't have the "freedom" to not pay taxes (or they shouldn't).

Likewise, once the well-being of individuals largely depend on having a Google account or a Facebook account, or once the ability to go from one place to another rests on having an Uber account, or the power to buy anything, including groceries, supposes one has an Amazon account, then those companies, private as they may, should be regulated so that they cannot unilaterally decide to ban individuals (real people), with no appeals process and no alternative.

I agree, but we're not in a situation where Facebook and google accounts are necessary elements of life nor is that likely. Everything you've mentioned has viable alternatives because none of these companies are a monopoly on those things. You have to first make a case that alternatives don't exist for necessary services and no such case exists.

It's a huge stretch to go from we the public have a right to regulate private companies-which I agree with-to those companies require regulation.

How would you define 'necessary elements'? Honest question.

Hypothetically, if there was plenty of alternative, but in practice everyone used FB/Google/etc., would that change things in your mind? It's not a technical monopoly, but practically it would be.

Mind, I'm not saying that I think this is the case, and I think we shouldn't preemptively do something about it quite yet. But I do feel the article at least makes me uncomfortable about the possibility.

Basically, I guess my question is: does it matter whether something is technically not a monopoly when, practically, it is? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this.

Does anyone require a Google account to live, no; it's a luxury item. Unless and until not having a google account prevents you from living in this society, i.e. unless it becomes a basic utility which without you cannot function in society, then I don't believe you have any right to regulate Google. It matters when something is a monopoly when its service becomes no longer a luxury but a necessary element of life in society. If I can't get utilities to my house because they rely on a Google account for authentication, then you can regulate Google.

That still doesn't really satisfy me. What divides 'living' from 'luxury item', at least in the context of places like Western Europe? Or is that already a point of contention?

To make things even more extreme: assuming that practically speaking all internet users get 100% of their content via FB (whether FB proper or WhatsApp), and perhaps Google, and assuming that FB and Google were free to do as they please, in that extreme case would you still argue that because technically a person could enter a non-FB or non-Google URL, buth FB and Google should not be regulated in any way?

Again, I'm honestly asking because I respect your views. I do realize that as far as making any kind of case this a reduction ad absurdum. I would just like to hear more elaboration to bridge the gap between your point of view and that of others here (many, based on the downvotes you're getting)

Yes I would, again, not having a Google account does not threaten your ability to survive and you do not have a right to someone else's services and labor except under extreme special circumstances. As long as you can setup a blog and self host, you will never have a right to Google's services in my opinion. No one company will ever own all possible channels of broadcast, and your right to free speech means only you cannot be jailed or punished by the government for your views; it does not grant you a right to be serviced by broadcast medium possible. You do not, and should not ever, have a right to a Google account.

They are both getting pretty close though, to being the only option in their area (social network - especially considering how many apps rely on facebook for authentication - and search).

The areas themselves however are luxuries, you do not require access to a social network or internet search to live your life. And no, Google isn't the only option for search, nor Facebook the only option for social networks. There is no justification for regulating these companies that isn't infringing on these companies rights to do business. You do not have a right to their services, their services are not something people require.

Freedom for 800-ton corporate gorillas shouldn't be privileged over the freedom of the average individual. And the word "freedom" is empty sloganeering if you pretend it's separate from power.

Not offering you their services isn't restricting your freedom. Your freedoms don't include a right to other people's services against their will.

> Not offering you their services isn't restricting your freedom.

It is if you have a monopoly.

>Your freedoms don't include a right to other people's services against their will.

They do if you have a monopoly.

They don't have monopolies so your counter is irrelevant.

But what if they do in the future? Suppose the author is right and ISPs don't support any packets/protocols other than FB, GOOG, and AMZN.

Are you arguing that in sum total, humanity is better off allowing private organizations to control communications in order to adhere to free market principles than the reverse?

No, I'm arguing future crime isn't a thing. You don't get to punish people because they "might".

HN is quite heavily moderated. Should they not have the right to do so?

Unrestricted freedom to restrict the freedom of others…

Feels like permissive vs copyleft all over again.

Not offering you their services isn't restricting your freedom. Your freedoms don't include a right to other people's services against their will.

That would be true if I had alternatives to begin with. If I'm banned from the only communication network in existence, I'm effectively banned from communicating altogether. No more freedom of speech, no more freedom of information, that's pretty heavy stuff.

I very much like the idea that no one has the "freedom" to deprive me of my citizens' freedoms. I mean, that's supposed to be the job of judges and juries.

You do have alternatives, and no law grants you the right to alternative versions of luxury products. You don't need a social network at all to be a functioning member of society, it's not a right. You're not banned from the only communication network in existence as none of those companies are that. They could all ban you and you still have access to the internet, you can still setup a blog and publish your thoughts to the world, you have not been limited in any way.

> No more freedom of speech, no more freedom of information, that's pretty heavy stuff.

I don't think you know what freedom of speech even means to be saying that here. Freedom of speech means the government can't limit your speech or punish you for it, it doesn't mean you have a right to every broadcast medium that exists for speech.

> You don't need a social network at all to be a functioning member of society, it's not a right.

I was talking about the trinet hypothesis, where (roughly speaking), Facebook is the internet. If I was banned from that, I couldn't even have a blog.

> Freedom of speech means the government can't limit your speech or punish you for it

Replace "government" by "no one", and I would agree. (I'll accept one exception, though: judges, when punishing me for some bad deed.)

> it doesn't mean you have a right to every broadcast medium that exists for speech.

Correct. But it does mean I have a right to at least one broadcast medium. By the way, freedom of speech only become real when the masses got internet access. Before then, only a select few could exercise that right: those with write access to radio, television, or journals.

> Replace "government" by "no one", and I would agree. (I'll accept one exception, though: judges, when punishing me for some bad deed.)

No. In the U.S. which is all I care about, no one but the government can violate your right to free speech. You do not have a right to not be censored by anyone nor should you.

> But it does mean I have a right to at least one broadcast medium.

No it does not; it doesn't remotely mean any such thing.

> By the way, freedom of speech only become real when the masses got internet access.

That's nonsense. Anyone anywhere can walk out into any public area and speak to the crowd; freedom of speech does not in any way imply freedom to wide area broadcast mediums, it means only that you can't get in trouble from the authorities for holding unpopular views. If your views are popular, they will gain an audience from word of mouth alone. You never had a right to TV, or the paper, or any other medium.

> it means only that you can't get in trouble from the authorities for holding unpopular views.

That's freedom of thought.

Reducing freedom of speech to the kind that doesn't have any influence (that would be "speaking to the crowd") is utterly ridiculous.

You can't be that stupid, and I'm not sure I mean that well.

---

PS: I don't care about the legal definition of the term "freedom of speech", it was defined at a time when it couldn't mean anything significant for the common people. Just understand that I'm talking about something broader, more powerful, enabled by the internet. Maybe you don't care about that broader freedom. But then imagine for a second being stripped of all your accounts, including your blog if you have one. We'll see how you don't care.

> That's freedom of thought.

Don't be absurd, thought can't be policed absent being made public via speech so it must necessarily involve speech to even be an issue. You're stammering to find a position because your own isn't logically coherent; that's what's happening here.

> Reducing freedom of speech to the kind that doesn't have any influence (that would be "speaking to the crowd") is utterly ridiculous.

No, it's what's always been intended; no speech is guaranteed to have influence, what an absurd notion to even ponder. Such a thing cannot ever be guaranteed.

> I don't care about the legal definition of the term "freedom of speech"

Well I don't care about this nonsense freedom you're making up because it imposes on other people's rights and can't be called a right. You do not have a right to other people's services, period. This broader freedom you're proclaiming is actually toxic abuse of private property, it's not freedom.

> But then imagine for a second being stripped of all your accounts, including your blog if you have one. We'll see how you don't care.

You don't have a right to have accounts on other people's systems. If every business you have an account with bans you, you're the problem, not them.

Repeating myself here, but:

Do you Libertarians realise that permission without ability means nothing?

But you're not. Your entire counter is non-sensical, and is nowhere even close to being reality.

We were talking about the trinet counterfactual. This world has yet to get to this point, thank goodness.

Copyleft doesn't restrict anyone else's freedoms, given that it starts with copyright law and proceeds to grant freedoms from that.

Depends on your starting point. One could take an ethical point of view, and argue the baseline is public domain. Compared to that, copyleft does restrict one's ability to put further restrictions.

Permissive zealots argue that such a restriction is unacceptable, on the grounds that any restriction is unacceptable. Apparently they don't even approve of the insurance policy that prevents the very restrictions they say they loath.

The present thread has the same structure. Someone says it's unacceptable for an entity (not even a person!) to restrict one's freedom of speech with no recourse, and the moral equivalent of the Permissive Zealot snaps that forbidding that power to forbid is unacceptable, "because freedom".

Do libertarians realise that permission without ability means nothing?

Ah, yes. "Freedom". The "think of the children" equivalent for when it comes to why we shouldn't have anti-trust legislation.

Strawman, no one claimed we shouldn't have anti-trust legislation. If you're going to engage in a debate, please do so honestly.

We already do so for certain protected classes.

We do, and that's wrong; there shouldn't be any protected classes. You don't get to a place of treating people fairly by specifically protecting certain classes of people, that's the same irrational logic that led to nonsense legal racism we call affirmative action.

> Freedom shouldn't be tolerated, really?

Exactly

The need to limit our freedom to harm others through our freedom and the need to protect the majority from the power of the singles are two concepts specifically stated in the universal human rights declaration

> universal human rights declaration

My country is bound by the Constitution, not by some bullshit the UN came up with. I don't believe in one world government and never will nor does our own supreme court which in 2004 declared that the declaration "does not of its own force impose obligations as a matter of international law."

We have no obligation to that document.

> My country is bound by the Constitution

And that's why you are savages

> We have no obligation to that document.

The fact that you believe you have no obligations to other people's right to "not be harmed" by bullies it's the reason why you're the only country in the world where kids kill other kids with shotguns.

That kind of shit doesn't happen anywhere else, not even in the so called third world.

Congrats!

wasn't 9/11 enough?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com