-2 karma · joined July 16, 2021
AT&T is an ISP among other carrier things.
How can a server, or a set of servers be anything more than an endpoint?
That you would compare ATT and FB shows a remarkable misunderstanding of the internet and WWW.
A private business is a private business and they can set their rules as they please as long as it doesn't run afoul of laws (ADA in the states for example).
That you think there is some important distinction where Google loses rights that Ma and Pa's store has shows that you have nothing reasonable to offer.
Show me where you have the right to have a conversation. That means that others can be compelled to talk to you.
They stop you from using their services, that is it.
You have no right to access popular private servers.
You have no right to a conversation because everyone else has the right to ignore you if they so choose.
Again, private companies can not be forced to give you server space. That pesky first amendment thing and all.
It is easy to be an internet tough guy, how about you actually start a simple file server with no restrictions and see how it goes?
Why should a company not have the same right on their property?
Stores do. Go to a store and cause a ruckus and watch the ban hammer come down on you after the cops drag you away.
How is Google different from Ma and Pa's Widget Store? At least law enforcement is not involved after most types of bannings from social media.
If Twitter adopted 4chan policies, it would be destroyed financially in short order.
Twitter is pretty loose compared to many of the big social sites. They allow nudity and porn, for example, but of course have rules such as marking it as sensitive. Try that on FB.
It is almost like they adopt polices that help their business. Just like brick and mortar businesses have policies on customer conduct and will ban trouble makers that impact their bottom line.
People have a right to be assholes but everyone else has the right to shun them from polite society.
There is no right to be heard, just to speak and not have the government stomp on you for it. No one else is required to listen or host it.
If they ban you, they are telling you that they don't want you on their private property.
They don't take away your internet connection.
When did society need Google, or Twitter, or FB to function? They do not. Those are simply three websites. There are literally millions more.
If this site banned me, I lost literally nothing. If Google Drive banned me(assuming I have an account, which I do not) I lost literally nothing. Same for FB. Same for Twitter.
They are not required for a functional society.
Why is that so hard to understand?
These big tech companies do not have the power to silence anyone.
Just like you can ban people you don't like from yours.
The top performers on FB are conservative pages for crying out loud!
They are afraid of much, which is the problem. It is irrational fear and based on ignorance and hatred.
Parler earned their ban 1000 times over. When sites get shut down by their hosts because its users were openly inciting violence that is not a problem.
I have yet to see someone get booted for following the platform's rules and merely being conservative. People from all over the political spectrum get banned every day.
Justice Thomas is hardly a reliable source for making it so.
People act like being banned is a life threatening event.
I don't need them to do anything at all.
There are competitors to Visa.
I can do anything I want without Apple, Visa, Google and even Amazon and Microsoft.
Build your own data center and upload anything you want. Don't demand that a private company give you an unfettered soapbox.
Also "source a new iPhone"? Can we dispense with the meaningless buzzwords, please?
If your view is based on provable falsehoods, your view is worse than valueless.
Tolerating these people is harmful to everyone, but that is not why Google is banning it. It is because it is harmful to Google's bottom line.
At the end of the day, Google owns their servers and can say what is allowed and what is not.
They don't want BS that is harming everyone on their property.
I would ban the same on my property.
That said, there is no reason to ever use Google. Nothing they offer is so critical that you must use them.
I don't use Google for anything and never will because they are a spyware company.
You willingly work for a spyware company and are trying to claim personal morals? How does that work in your mind? Genuinely curious.
> We should be able to implement services like these, that are free of ads, on globally distributed infrastructure, with no central authority, to have truly free-flowing information.
How does that work?
Who pays for it?
Who manages it?
You realize that would create a de facto government if an actual government wasn't running it.
Look at any website that has truly "free-flowing information".
They all end up being a cesspool filled with racists, sovcits, terrorists, and pedophiles.
Even places like Kiwifams has rules and deletes posts and bans users that violates their few rules.
How is that obvious?
If a single person, regardless of where they work, can produce a stock trading app that would actually compete against what a company is producing, why shouldn't they do it?
People are starting to learn how much power they really have (see the current low wage revolt), perhaps programmers will realize it someday and stop allowing companies to steamroll them.