morlockabove

That might be good in the long run; bitcoin's notoriously flawed when it comes to privacy, speed, power use etc. But maintains top position because it were forst; were USG to crush it, a more modern, privacy-centered currency like monero could take center stage.

You pay the price for your politics.

Section 230

Monopolies are de-facto government bodies. It isn't that Ebay is administered by USG (although I'm sure Ebay has an NSA/DHS detachment); it's that it makes no difference to the user whether a government bans the sale of books on online flea markets or the only practical online flea market does.

If the only store within a 2-hour drive is walmart, walmart is your equivalent of the soviet centrally-planned economy.

But it should be, given it's a monopoly on the space.

The r-word is potentially triggering. Stop.

They're a publically traded monopoly marketplace with special legal protection from being sued. I would be fine with them being forced to act like what they pretend to be- a commons, a market.

The freedom of a giant, monopolistic company is not aligned with the freedom of humans.

We already have precedents for conpanies being forced to impartiality- utilities. Ebay's a utility, the modern large-scale version of the ground a flea market sits on.

Law of the jungle; you get someone fired from their job, get their health insurance taken away, your life is forfeit. It's worse than SWATting.

This is going to lead to reverse-dox revenge killings.

When there's one company (due to network effects) that does something, that company's a de facto arm of government for that thing.

So yes, we do need distributed everything.

Why did so many pioneers die of broken legs and dysentery? Why do most restaurants go out of business?

But it would put some people in the tax department out of work, so even if hypothetically a more efficient tax scheme would let you grow the government as a whole, the current people in the tax department have an incentive to not let that happen.

If they just don't eat, they won't need insulin anymore!

What a very convenient point of view for the people above the law. I hope they're passing some of their gains on to you.

Depending on where you live, there might only be one.

>personal attacks

That's rich, given the condescension you've shown in this thread.

Where I come from, trawling through people's post histories is creepy.

How does zuck's zuckle taste?

Just starve bro

I get wanting to crush untouchables; I just think it's a hysterical stance to take vis-a-vis something like FB. You're not having the King "do something about taxes"; you're having him go on witch hunts.

I'm suspicious about how much witch-hunters actually want the king gone, or whether they wouldn't want to replace him with a cheka later. They have a vested interest in power staying centralized. This all makes it a lot funnier when it's their sister being burnt at the stake. Someone might even break out a saying.

With how evasive you're being, I can only assume your stances would cast you in an unfavourable light, similar to the guy who's "Just asking questions about race".

I'll take the median judge with multiple appelate courts above them over a 26-year old overworked unaccountable 95 IQ [x] studies graduate.

If facebook moderators wore fancy clothes and hit things with gavels on camera when making judgements, the situation would rapidly improve.

Bro just build your own AWS

Whoever gets to decide what's "violence and terrorism groups" can just remove whoever they want. So your stance, combined with centralization, immediately leads to tyranny.

You don't want a world where people can be deplatformed, but you want facebook to deplatform people?

If I built an uncensorable distributed/federated FLOSS Facebook equivalent (fedbook?) with distributed moderation (personalized so it censors out the things that would offend you/spam from your feed, or whatever you set it to) and it became popular, would you be for that?

Do you think it that Hateful Ideas wouldn't be compelling on such a market?

Would you deny facebook to everyone if you could, because the shape of facebook-like sites is corrosive to the mind in and of itself, in a way that private chatrooms aren't? I could respect wanting to deplatform absolutely everyone, in a unabomber way. But somehow I doubt that's your position.

I just don't see how whatever advantages you claim facebook has given to 'assholes', it hasn't given to e.g. BLM twice over- with feeds tuned to engagement and rage etc. and also the Official Blessing.

Sorry, they can do what they want if they're funded by venture capital.

If we can get federated solutions to be nice enough, maybe that'll do it.

If you put too much comparative value on keeping the boot on Bad People's necks, you'll help close off methods to shift influence away from e.g. Facebook.

If a lot of people move to e.g. the fediverse facebook equivalent, that shifts power away from facebook and makes it harder to deplatform people. So your two listed goals are in competition. That's why I'm saying you reap what you sow: you wanted a world where people can be deplatformed, and you got it.

People were using the argument five years ago, 4,3,2, yesterday. Whenever one of these monopolies does something to A that B approves of and A objects, B comes out with IAPCTCDWTW.

People generally seem love to make excuses for Power when it's stepping on people they don't like, and are then somehow surprised when Power turns around and crushes them.

It turns out that handing the public square to centralized control ends badly. Who knew!

You reap what you sow.

"It's a private company, they can do what they want!"

Yes!

I meant that thinking in terms of 'LGBT' being a distinct category in your conception of the world is a worldview foreign to a lot of *chan people.

They don't slice up the world the same way you do; whoever made up that word put gays, lesbians, and transsexuals together for political reasons, and left-wing political activists your median chan-users are not- why use the language of someone else, someone who despises you and wants to crush you?

From their point of view, the mental theatre that contains actors named 'LGBT' and 'Diversity, Inclusion and Equity' as front-and-centre characters is a cold, dead place-

whereas their native memescape, filled with Colourful Words, traps, arguments, the cacophany of 'hateful memes', is alive and vibrant by comparison, if tinged by a deep despair at the leaching of vitality from the world.

It's why the NPC meme caught on.

Traps are anime, and so are idealised abstractions as much as anime girls are. They're also tinged by imported japanese culture, I'd assume.