Moderation Farms?

[Forsher]

And hence... moderation farms (after troll farms) with police powers.

Only on the condition that they are immersed in tanks of bacta with tubes coming out of their head, so it looks like some sort of Matrix/Minority Report human warehouse and they can fully immerse their minds in cyberspace. The banhammer can be the first tool to enter our species' telepathic toolkit.

Plus, then they won't feel like postmodern traffic cops!

Postmodern traffic cop is a fantastic phrase. Did you coin it?

But if they become large enough, that sounds disturbingly like locking out competition.

The fact that I can do a Google Search and find a multitude of them means that there are not locking out the competition, or are they a monopoly.

And, even if a Social Networking becomes a monopoly, who is the victim? What crime is really being committed to force them to shut down or to break up?

I would argue that Facebook has a natural monopoly (in the West) and it can't have a true competitor as a result. Twitter, Reddit and Youtube aren't really competitors with Facebook because they don't provide anything like the same service. Similarly, Youtube is also a social network but it's not a competitor with Facebook either... though Facebook has certainly tried to muscle in on Youtube's videos from time to time (with varying degrees of success). Twitter, Reddit and Tumblr all kind of exist in the same space, but in a very loose sense. However, they're more like traditional competitors.

Breaking up a natural monopoly is dumb sauce, though.

[The Alma Mater]

I would argue that Facebook has a natural monopoly (in the West) and it can't have a true competitor as a result.

Facebook is already dying. Social networks come and go; in a few years there will be a new one.

[CoraSpia]

But if they all deplatform Trump around the same time, is it REALLY competition?

If they feel what he does is against their Terms of Service, then they have that right.

For being the party of "small government", Republicans really are attempting to push more government control, especially over businesses that they disapprove of.

This isn't the first time that these companies have acted in lockstep. They need to beinvestigated for collusion.

[Page]

If they feel what he does is against their Terms of Service, then they have that right.

For being the party of "small government", Republicans really are attempting to push more government control, especially over businesses that they disapprove of.

This isn't the first time that these companies have acted in lockstep. They need to beinvestigated for collusion.

I think collusion is much less likely than one making the first move and the others taking their opportunity to do the same without getting too much blowback for it. They were all under pressure to deplatform Trump and his followers, when one finally did it the others knew they could do it too without drawing too much negative attention to themselves.

[Des-Bal]

Twitter is a privately owned company that can ban anyone they choose for any reason. Just like NationStates. The President isn't being censored. He can call a fucking press conference if he wants to.

Yeah! Unless that rationale is inconvenient, then they're providing a public service and have no right to deny it to people arbitrarily.

[The Alma Mater]

Twitter is a privately owned company that can ban anyone they choose for any reason. Just like NationStates. The President isn't being censored. He can call a fucking press conference if he wants to.

Yeah! Unless that rationale is inconvenient, then they're providing a public service and have no right to deny it to people arbitrarily.

I admit it is a bit ironic that Trump was not allowed to block people on his twitter since he was not allowed to deny Americans access to official communication - but that twitter is allowed to block ALL communication.

[Forsher]

I would argue that Facebook has a natural monopoly (in the West) and it can't have a true competitor as a result.

Facebook is already dying. Social networks come and go; in a few years there will be a new one.

Source?

If they feel what he does is against their Terms of Service, then they have that right.

For being the party of "small government", Republicans really are attempting to push more government control, especially over businesses that they disapprove of.

This isn't the first time that these companies have acted in lockstep. They need to beinvestigated for collusion.

What?

Two entities responding to the same stimulus in the same fashion is not collusion.

[Kexholm Karelia]

Twitter is a privately owned company that can ban anyone they choose for any reason. Just like NationStates.

That’s what it is, the question is should it be that way?

[Des-Bal]

I admit it is a bit ironic that Trump was not allowed to block people on his twitter since he was not allowed to deny Americans access to official communication - but that twitter is allowed to block ALL communication.

Well more broadly I mean that for some people the idea private businesses should be allowed to do business with the people and in the fashion they elect is handled differently based on who's hands are getting tied.

[Des-Bal]

What?

Two entities responding to the same stimulus in the same fashion is not collusion.

Why did all the children run when I started throwing rocks at them? What are the little fuckers up to?

[Stylan]

I don't think Twitter and Facebook should be regulated by the government, because that would likely lead to insane curtailing of free speech, even worse than now. I do think something needs to be done about the insane power Big Tech has over free expression, and they should absolutely not be allowed to ban any government official from their platform.

[Page]

I don't think Twitter and Facebook should be regulated by the government, because that would likely lead to insane curtailing of free speech, even worse than now. I do think something needs to be done about the insane power Big Tech has over free expression, and they should absolutely not be allowed to ban any government official from their platform.

I am more concerned with the silencing of regular people. If you're a member of government you can call CNN and say anything you want to them and they'll put what you said on the news, but regular folks can't get their voices out there without social media.

[The New California Republic]

To paraphrase Morpheus: "NS Mods are no longer born...they are grown."

[Tornado Queendom]

But if they all deplatform Trump around the same time, is it REALLY competition?

Well, yes. Or are you arguing it is not "true" competition if there is not a social networking site that refuses to ban adbots ? Or childpornography, beheading vids etc ?

The sites all need to function in the same society after all.

Banning Trump is not like banning Child Porn or Beheading Videos or Spambots. At least banning Spambots is justified. Inciting Violence is FAR harder to define than Child Porn. Beheading Videos are clearly showing WAY more violence than an entire Trump Rally.
I see Trump's ban as unnecessary. Where do you draw the line?

[Tornado Queendom]

This isn't the first time that these companies have acted in lockstep. They need to beinvestigated for collusion.

What?

Two entities responding to the same stimulus in the same fashion is not collusion.

If it's not Collusion, it's at least Anti-Competitive behavior. You know Cable TV?

[The Alma Mater]

Well, yes. Or are you arguing it is not "true" competition if there is not a social networking site that refuses to ban adbots ? Or childpornography, beheading vids etc ?

The sites all need to function in the same society after all.

Banning Trump is not like banning Child Porn or Beheading Videos or Spambots. At least banning Spambots is justified. Inciting Violence is FAR harder to define than Child Porn. Beheading Videos are clearly showing WAY more violence than an entire Trump Rally.
I see Trump's ban as unnecessary. Where do you draw the line?

That was not the question. The question was if there is true competition if all companies do not wish to associate themselves with similar things.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

A nice farm in the country where mods can go and live when they get old.

[The Two Jerseys]

Twitter is a private company and can do what they want, if Trump doesn't like it he can go to Parler instead!

Oh wait, he can't, Parler is shut down because Amazon decided that they don't want to host it on their servers...

I'm now 100% convinced that Big Tech is a cartel and should be subject to antitrust action.

[Kexholm Karelia]

Twitter is a private company and can do what they want, if Trump doesn't like it he can go to Parler instead!

Oh wait, he can't, Parler is shut down because Amazon decided that they don't want to host it on their servers...

I'm now 100% convinced that Big Tech is a cartel and should be subject to antitrust action.

I wouldn’t call it a cartel, it’s more like the companies of the Robber Barons, I am seeing a lot of people even on the right calling for facebook, amazon, google, and such to be broken up now

[Nattily Dressed Anarchists on Bicycles]

Twitter is a private company and can do what they want, if Trump doesn't like it he can go to Parler instead!

Oh wait, he can't, Parler is shut down because Amazon decided that they don't want to host it on their servers...

I'm now 100% convinced that Big Tech is a cartel and should be subject to antitrust action.

Not quite. It's more like Twitter and a user had, in theory, a meeting of the minds concerning the use of Twitter's property, in the form of a terms of service which appears to include an acceptable use policy. Twitter asserts that one party to the contract is in violation, and has exercise its subsequent right to terminate the agreement. The user might try to sue in court (and, in all likelihood, add to his pile of embarrassing losses to date), but that's probably the extent of his available actions.

Repeat for Amazon.

What's actually most fascinating about this whole thing is the way in which the "laissez-faire" "conservative" crowd is now scrambling to assert their right to other people's property. I suppose when the monster they've helped create turns around and bites them, opinions might change, but it will be interesting to see how the ideological dust settles eventually.

In the mean time, the next time at least two landlords or potential employers reject my applications, I'm going to declare a cartel and call upon the mighty sword of the state.

[Cordel One]

Twitter is a private company and can do what they want, if Trump doesn't like it he can go to Parler instead!

Oh wait, he can't, Parler is shut down because Amazon decided that they don't want to host it on their servers...

Good, there is no place for rightist terrorist sites like Parler.

I'm now 100% convinced that Big Tech is a cartel and should be subject to antitrust action.

That's true, but for different reasons.

[Kexholm Karelia]

What's actually most fascinating about this whole thing is the way in which the "laissez-faire" "conservative" crowd is now scrambling to assert their right to other people's property. I suppose when the monster they've helped create turns around and bites them, opinions might change, but it will be interesting to see how the ideological dust settles eventually.

Monopolies are inherently anti market because they stifle competition

[Kexholm Karelia]

Twitter is a private company and can do what they want, if Trump doesn't like it he can go to Parler instead!

Oh wait, he can't, Parler is shut down because Amazon decided that they don't want to host it on their servers...

Good, there is no place for rightist terrorist sites like Parler.

Parler wasn’t a "rightist terrorist site" by any means, the vast majority of users were conservatives posting memes about Biden, Democrats, the left, and complaining about the "stolen" election. Because some users called for violence by no means makes the entire site so, or that logic could apply to all social media forums including NSG, where people have called for direct violence numerous times, often being banned for it

[Nattily Dressed Anarchists on Bicycles]

What's actually most fascinating about this whole thing is the way in which the "laissez-faire" "conservative" crowd is now scrambling to assert their right to other people's property. I suppose when the monster they've helped create turns around and bites them, opinions might change, but it will be interesting to see how the ideological dust settles eventually.

Monopolies are inherently anti market because they stifle competition

True. However, since neither Twitter nor Amazon are the whole of the internet, it is at least questionable whether any such monopoly actually exists. I would honestly be shocked if Parler, if as popular as it supposedly is, doesn't by-its-own-bootstraps a hosting service imminently. That would, at least, be the laissez-faire approach here.

[The Alma Mater]

Good, there is no place for rightist terrorist sites like Parler.

Parler wasn’t a "rightist terrorist site" by any means, the vast majority of users were conservatives posting memes about Biden, Democrats, the left, and complaining about the "stolen" election. Because some users called for violence by no means makes the entire site so, or that logic could apply to all social media forums including NSG, where people have called for direct violence numerous times, often being banned for it

Then again, I did not see much outrage when parler banned leftists from the parler community.
So why all the whining now that twitter banned Trump ?