NationStates

The Emerald Legion wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
I don't know how the law has changed, or if it's something about tech companies in particular, but IBM and Microsoft defended themselves just fine. As to AT&T they were in a compromised position, having operated for years as an authorized monopoly, and even so there's no saying they couldn't have fought the government.

As to nationalizing them, how much of the market value were you thinking of paying?

IBM defended itself by giving up it's monopoly on its own tech. It basically let anyone build IBM parts and such.

Zapato wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
Most anti-discrimination laws like the Equality Act 2010 allow private businesses to institute policies that would be prima facie discriminatory, but which pursues a legitimate aim and comports with proportionality. For instance, having a support group for sufferers of gay conversion therapy is a policy that would include gay people and not straight people, that's prima facie discriminatory based on sexual orientation, but could be argued to be compatible with the principle of proportionality and it pursues a legitimate aim and interest. So in your example, we could just apply the test of proportionality to YouTube's policy and let a court figure out whether the argument flies. This is not a new concept. The Equality Act 2010 in the UK is based on precisely this system that I'm suggesting should be extended to discrimination based on political conscience.

If you, as a private person, want to make a website for "Jewish survivors of the Holocaust", you'll have to be prepared to spend thousands of dollars on legal fees every time you deny access to a nazi - and you might end up losing. That sounds like a great plan.

Zapato wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
Most anti-discrimination laws like the Equality Act 2010 allow private businesses to institute policies that would be prima facie discriminatory, but which pursues a legitimate aim and comports with proportionality. For instance, having a support group for sufferers of gay conversion therapy is a policy that would include gay people and not straight people, that's prima facie discriminatory based on sexual orientation, but could be argued to be compatible with the principle of proportionality and it pursues a legitimate aim and interest. So in your example, we could just apply the test of proportionality to YouTube's policy and let a court figure out whether the argument flies. This is not a new concept. The Equality Act 2010 in the UK is based on precisely this system that I'm suggesting should be extended to discrimination based on political conscience.

If you, as a private person, want to make a website for "Jewish survivors of the Holocaust", you'll have to be prepared to spend thousands of dollars on legal fees every time you deny access to a nazi - and you might end up losing. That sounds like a great plan.

Purgatio wrote:

Zapato wrote:If you, as a private person, want to make a website for "Jewish survivors of the Holocaust", you'll have to be prepared to spend thousands of dollars on legal fees every time you deny access to a nazi - and you might end up losing. That sounds like a great plan.

Lmao do you just not get how legal precedent, case law, and res judicata work? Judicial precedent exists for a reason.

Aureumterra wrote:Keep in mind this is the same website who got 300 million from the Chinese Communists

No State Here wrote:If your favorite subreddit got banned, consider it a badge of honor, because it means one of two things, either it hurt Steve Huffman’s feelings, or it hurt China’s feelings

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:

Zapato wrote:If you, as a private person, want to make a website for "Jewish survivors of the Holocaust", you'll have to be prepared to spend thousands of dollars on legal fees every time you deny access to a nazi - and you might end up losing. That sounds like a great plan.

Uhm...if this website is for only 'jewish' survivors, it's already covered under the exemptions that Purgatio brought up.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:You can nationalize tech companies and then break them up. Or you can give them the ma bell treatment

I don't know how the law has changed, or if it's something about tech companies in particular, but IBM and Microsoft defended themselves just fine. As to AT&T they were in a compromised position, having operated for years as an authorized monopoly, and even so there's no saying they couldn't have fought the government.

As to nationalizing them, how much of the market value were you thinking of paying?

Tornado Queendom wrote:

Rule 1: Remember the human. Reddit is a place for creating community and belonging, not for attacking marginalized or vulnerable groups of people. Everyone has a right to use Reddit free of harassment, bullying, and threats of violence. Communities and people that incite violence or that promote hate based on identity or vulnerability will be banned.

Marginalized or vulnerable groups include, but are not limited to, groups based on their actual and perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, immigration status, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, pregnancy, or disability. These include victims of a major violent event and their families.

While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect all groups or all forms of identity. For example, the rule does not protect groups of people who are in the majority or who promote such attacks of hate.

It's official, Reddit is turning into a reverse Nazi Germany (which is just as bad as the real Nazi Germany). Not to mention, r/BigChungus also got banned. That ALONE is not a good idea in my opinion

Kargintina the Third wrote:Reddit is a privately owned website they can censor who they please

Kargintina the Third wrote:Reddit is a privately owned website they can censor who they please

The Emerald Legion wrote:

Kargintina the Third wrote:Reddit is a privately owned website they can censor who they please

Giant is a privately owned Grocery Store, they can sell, or not sell, to who they please.

Thermodolia wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
I don't know how the law has changed, or if it's something about tech companies in particular, but IBM and Microsoft defended themselves just fine. As to AT&T they were in a compromised position, having operated for years as an authorized monopoly, and even so there's no saying they couldn't have fought the government.

As to nationalizing them, how much of the market value were you thinking of paying?

Paying? Hardly. The CEOs would be lucky to not be thrown in prison

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Paying? Hardly. The CEOs would be lucky to not be thrown in prison

Count me out. That's just vandalism.

Holy Tedalonia wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Count me out. That's just vandalism.

I mean you do that to any monopoly and monopsony, since the economy becomes very screwed up at that rate. We're getting to a point where tech companies hold more influence and power than ever before. Some would say they are the modern robber barons of this era. Wouldn't be to bad to knock them down a few pegs.

Zapato wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:
Uhm...if this website is for only 'jewish' survivors, it's already covered under the exemptions that Purgatio brought up.

But we'll have to "let a court figure out" if the exemption applies. Do you know how much that will cost in the US?

Enough that I would not want to start up such a website.

Lanoraie II wrote:Imagine using r*ddit. These rules were written for manchildren and womenchildren who can't function as competent members of society and feel the need to blame everything wrong with their life on the majority, their scapegoat. I'm a bisexual disabled woman and the only problems in my life are from my parents and a small handful of people who failed me. Not necessarily society as a whole. There are society-wide problems for sure, but generalizing, let's see.....anywhere from the entire population of one's country to the entire world is quite a heavy handed and arrogant move.

Also, just because reddit is "privately owned" does not excuse this godawful handling of their website and userbase. They are immensely popular and have a responsibility to be fair and respectful.

Stylan wrote:Your personal experience doesn't outweigh facts. As a straight white man I could say I was persecuted because x y z but statistics don't back it up.

One of the gravest dangers of political discourse online is the tendency for people to take their personal experiences as the way of the world.

Stylan wrote:

Lanoraie II wrote:Imagine using r*ddit. These rules were written for manchildren and womenchildren who can't function as competent members of society and feel the need to blame everything wrong with their life on the majority, their scapegoat. I'm a bisexual disabled woman and the only problems in my life are from my parents and a small handful of people who failed me. Not necessarily society as a whole. There are society-wide problems for sure, but generalizing, let's see.....anywhere from the entire population of one's country to the entire world is quite a heavy handed and arrogant move.

Also, just because reddit is "privately owned" does not excuse this godawful handling of their website and userbase. They are immensely popular and have a responsibility to be fair and respectful.

Under capitalism (which don't get me wrong, I don't defend) they have zero resposibility to do anything.

Your personal experience doesn't outweigh facts. As a straight white man I could say I was persecuted because x y z but statistics don't back it up.

One of the gravest dangers of political discourse online is the tendency for people to take their personal experiences as the way of the world.

Anurial wrote:The reason so many of your favourite subreddits were banned was that they were full of Nazis and alt-righters. Weird to see "ancaps" defend this. The only exception to that was ChapoTrapHouse which was toxic enough anyway. I dunno about you but banning Nazis from using the site as the rest of large social media platforms do seems pretty reasonable to ensure a better environment for everyone else. On a last point, it seems odd that again supposed "ancaps" have a problem with what private companies want to add to their terms of service.

Anurial wrote:The reason so many of your favourite subreddits were banned was that they were full of Nazis and alt-righters. Weird to see "ancaps" defend this. The only exception to that was ChapoTrapHouse which was toxic enough anyway. I dunno about you but banning Nazis from using the site as the rest of large social media platforms do seems pretty reasonable to ensure a better environment for everyone else. On a last point, it seems odd that again supposed "ancaps" have a problem with what private companies want to add to their terms of service.