Quantcast
[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / g / ic / jp / lit / sci / tg / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!

/biz/ - Business & Finance


View post   

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 4 KB, 299x168, download.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
25760878 No.25760878 [Reply] [Original] [archived.moe]

Simple question. Should Big Tech companies be regulated as public utilities?

>> No.25760919

>>25760878
No, but their IP should be broken (as should all IP, desu).

>> No.25760946

>>25760878
Yes

>> No.25761026

>>25760878
no, self regulation works well. they don't control shit. they only control those retarded enough to use their websites. their websites are mostly bloat and you don't need any account to use the useful ones

>> No.25761069

>>25760878
No. But there shouldn’t be barriers to people starting their own platforms. I really hope things like gab and larger and whatever else start becoming genius even competition to the technocracy

>> No.25761232

>>25760946
Many think so, it seems. It's the most upvoted comment on Hoskinson's new video. Do you realize, though, that once the government is in control, it won't ease up on hate speech, right? Some people don't think more than one step ahead.

>> No.25761707

>>25760878
yes. Social Media is the public space of the 21st century, they're American companies and should be subject to first amendment regulation.

>>25761026
>no, self regulation works well
Absolutely fucking not. How can you say this without an ounce of sarcasm after they systematically banned a sitting president from their platforms yesterday?
>they don't control shit
dumbass. If silicon valley were a country it'd be one of the richest on the planet.
>they only control those retarded enough to use their websites. their websites are mostly bloat and you don't need any account to use the useful ones
no one uses those 'useful ones'. Social Media is geared towards monopolization because people want to go to the platforms where the most people are.

>> No.25761896

>>25761707
I don't need to hear your tech illiterate opinion, twitter is not the internet, it's one website among millions of domains, and I don't give a damn about how those companies are doing financially, I also don't care about retards using bloated websites, all I care about is that open source stays very popular, which is the case, there's no danger at all in the digital world dumbass

>> No.25762275

>>25761896
>twitter is not the internet
never stated this retard.
>it's one website among millions of domains
I'm not referring to solely twitter. I'm talking about google, facebook, youtube too. All constitute a stupendous amount of internet traffic.
>I don't give a damn about how those companies are doing financially
you clearly stated "they don't control shit" in your prior post, so you obviously fucking do. They give millions of dollars in political donations. They control a lot.
>there's no danger at all in the digital world dumbass
We're talking about big tech companies shit for brains, not the entire integrity of the 'digital world'. Improve your comprehension.

>> No.25762508

>>25762275
yeah and those are still not the internet, just 4 websites, none of those control anything low level
stop wasting any more of your time to bloat websites, they literally don't matter, if you feel tied to them the problem is you
even if there are socialists/communists in them, it doesn't matter, most of them love capitalism, just get rich with crypto and ignore the retards which will always exist

>> No.25762550

>>25760878
yes

they are platforms, if they censor what they want, then they are editors and are liable to be sued for any content they host

They can pick 1, and 1 only

>> No.25762615

>>25762550
this here is the only sensible, fair and civilization-abiding answer in this thread so far by the way.

Want to made a private website? You are in control of what gets posted there, but you can be sued for what is in there.

Want to make a platform that facilitates communications or transfer of money online (similar to a telephone company, or bank IRL)? Then you don't get to interfere, unless there is a request by the police

>> No.25762625

>>25760878
Just make mind control illegal. Advertising violates the NAP and it's the engine behind all the shit these literal demons are doing.

>> No.25762681

>>25760878
It should be decentralized

>> No.25762700
File: 17 KB, 360x450, CF177608-8087-4DAD-AC63-6557E61BB70C.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
25762700

>>25762508
>Don’t regulate the railroads or oil companies! It’s private enterprise you can just go build your own!!!
>t.

>> No.25762853

>>25762700
>I can only publish information on twitter, youtube and facebook
you normies are really lucky to know about biz, how did you managed to even arrive there?

>> No.25762862

>>25761026
Watch the Great Hack and The Social Dilemma. Social Media is the biggest reason for division. They encourage Echo Chambers, which mould you to your political beliefs and become more extreme on both sides of the spectrum. Social Media does not care about you, and it does not care about the ramifications - it is solely there to keep you hooked and engaged, to make sure you click click click. Nothing good will ever come from platforms which stimulate hive-mind when the main topics are politics.

The enemy is not the left, and it's not the right, the enemy is Big Tech, who are our modern day overlords. Their actions in days past have proven that they will silence anyone who gets in their way, regardless of position. Whilst you may not use it, billions of people do - it's where the majority of Americans get their news, it's where people's thoughts are shaped, and some radicalised.

As Julius Caesar said, Divide and Conquer - they're doing a hell of a job.

>> No.25762912

>>25762681
>>25762853
You can publish decentral with BSV.

>> No.25762919

>>25762508
>yeah and those are still not the internet, just 4 websites
Yes, the same websites of which we specifically discussing in this thread as stated by the OP. Don't know why you're talking about the 'safety of the digital world' as if that's the discussion at hand.
>stop wasting any more of your time to bloat websites
How is bloating them to make them subject to 1st amendment jurisdiction? I never said fund them.
>they literally don't matter
yeah bro definitely not. That's why they had enough power to uniformly ban the leader of the most hegemonic country on the face of the earth.
>just get rich with crypto and ignore the retards which will always exist
>just ignore getting fucked in the ass by million dollar companies that can regulate your speech on the internet where no one but a few schizos can hear you

>> No.25762974

Only socialist fuckwits want to govern private social medias because they are large.

>> No.25762995

>>25761896
>I don't need to hear your tech illiterate opinion, twitter is not the internet
No, but google, twitter, amazon and facebook are a big part of the surface internet. If you say otherwise, you're a niggtard.

>> No.25763058

>>25762995
So is McDonalds within food biz, but they have right to choose their customers dipshit.

>> No.25763059

Any grifter/eceleb you know shilling "alt-tech" that is still just a single website (Parler, BitChute, Dlive) is an idiot. They are ignorant and their information is damaging to the health of the Internet.

Andrew Torba cannot collect money except by mail-in checks. Parler, with all its celebrity endorsements and millions in funds, was disappeared overnight with a snap. BitChute is not redundant, subservient to the UK government and the Gunt, and ran by a single point of failure. The President of the United States was removed from social media so he can soon be removed from office this week without a word of protest.

The only solutions to our problems are federated. Federated solutions are ones which enable two computers ran by ordinary people to communicate without the permission of a third party. For text-based content, these solutions already exist. IPFS has existed for decades, and the Fediverse can be a suitable substitute for Twitter with enough support. The more support it has, the more Fediverse frontends can be developed.

To empower these technologies, they need people using them. Your attention and engagement is free to give.
Look into the Fediverse. Styx, for instance, is still clinging on to BitChute and Parler. Metokur, on his 4th Twitter account, sits and waits to be deleted again. Ralph depends on Dlive's mercy, after they banned Nick Fuentes and Gloomtube just a few hours ago. These people exhibit symptoms of mental illness. They are chickens in a coop who breathe a sigh of relief every time the farmer's hand scoops up someone else for slaughter.

Talk to these people whose content you consume and encourage them to do something as simple as setting up a Fediverse mirror of their Twitter accounts.


Bitcoin is $40,000 because people use it, so fucking use these tools. Use Tor, use the Fediverse, and support the people who provide these services however you can. Do not wait until it's too late to try and adopt these technologies.

>> No.25763071

>>25762853
I love how you just skipped google.

>> No.25763092

>>25762625
Really think about it.
Why do all these companies want to regulate speech so badly? Mostly to be able to categorize everything into advertiser friendly segments. The actual politics are mostly irrelevant, it's about the perception of mainstream appeal not the actual content.

It makes no sense to just pretend mass brainwashing for profit is normal. The advertising industry is one of the biggest threats to the continuation of life there is, it's a growing natural disaster that can become an extinction level event.

>> No.25763157
File: 460 KB, 2218x1818, Screen Shot 2021-01-09 at 9.41.46 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
25763157

>>25762853
Yeah just publish information on websites that get barely any traffic compared to the big ones. Do you have a post it note on you at all times reminding you to breathe? Those platforms are too large to be private and you're either a paid twatter shill or just a straight up retard if you disagree. Hang yourself unironically and livestream on FB, you'll stay live longer than it took them to ban trump because no one will even tune in to watch - you're gonna die alone and poor.

>> No.25763160

>>25763058
>Comparing McDonalds to Google, Facebook, Amazon, Twitter and Forbes together.
Right, you're a retard.

>> No.25763198

>>25762862
yeah. and there's nothing we can do about echo chambers it'll always exist. it's in our nature, we're retarded, the smartest will always stand out, majority will not and do all kinds of retarded things. the brightests carry everyone. latest biggest example with cryptocurrencies.
billions of people use social media, billions of people are sheep and retarded. the social media there or not won't change this.

>>25762919
learn to make your points clear, also see message above

again: you tech illiterate just seem to understand that you can have personal websites, blogs, and not be censored there. stop using social media requiring an account it has lowered your iq low enough already

>> No.25763291

>>25762508
You’re actually severely underestimating how much influence big tech has...

>> No.25763310

>>25763157
you social media worshipers are the biggest retards in the story. you're also advocating for state management instead of a business, you're like 18
social media sucks

>> No.25763338

>>25763198
Chink hands typed this post.

>> No.25763379

>>25763058
you can't seriously be equating the refusal of serving a big mac to getting banned from social media platforms for expressing dissenting opinion, can you? Is your pea sized brain incapable of discerning the implications of these two? I hate libertarians so much it's unreal.

>>25763198
>learn to make your points clear
you're the one going off on tangents from the original topic of the OP.
>tech illiterate
I don't need a compu sci degree to understand what big tech is doing is wrong.
>personal websites, blogs, and not be censored there
none of which have near as much reach. And even then they can still be banned if the domain registrar pulls the plug.

>> No.25763381
File: 465 KB, 1366x1162, 1534874315746.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
25763381

>>25762508
>he doesn't know about google's monopoly on digital ads

>> No.25763444

>>25763198
Because OAuth doesn't exists, because enterprises don't check your social media information for some jobs, because no one uses social media, because you don't have an smartphone (every smartphone comes with google by default). Social media censorship is relevant, because even if you don't use social media the fact that there are thousand of millions of brain washed faggots that want you dead because they don't like your political alignment will fuck your life anyways.

>> No.25763487

>>25760878
Social media ruined the world. Normies shouldn't be able to have hand held PC's.

>> No.25763563

notice what I do: I advocate for NOT using the services of google, facebook, and other bloat like this.
YOU are the retard. you are dependant on them it seems. you call me a retard for telling you to quit those shitty business and ignore the retards on those platforms
do it and stop seething

>>25763379
then pick a registrar that is actually neutral, I promise it exists outside the us

>> No.25763569

>>25760878
The answer is yes, no explanation needed. The explanation should be obvious. Anything other than yes is cope or you’re genuinely a moron.

>> No.25763617

No, not Big Tech itself but utilities such as search engines and public forums should absolutely be regulated as such.

>> No.25763625

>>25763563
>Ching chong ping pong winnie the pooh

>> No.25763639

>>25760878
No they should be banned. (except for google which should be broken up in an antitrust suit)
Most of these sites are quite literally tearing down society in front of our eyes.

>> No.25763665

>>25763625
if I was chinese I would tell you to use a random chink service in place, you think china has monopoly on personal websites? tech illiterate retard

>> No.25763710

>>25761026
I would second the social dilemma on this topic. These sites are extremely persuasive and anyone with under ~125ish IQ is not intellectually capable of figuring this out. 95% of people are completely controlled by social media.

>> No.25763718

>>25763639
Other companies will just come in their place. If advertising is banned they have to change their entire business models to serve their customers for money instead of brainwashing them for free. There's no reason to allow society to crumble to protect the profits of an industry created around programming people.

>> No.25763734

>>25763563
>then pick a registrar that is actually neutral, I promise it exists outside the us
oh look then mega conglomerate search engines decide to manipulate their algorithms whereby it's incredibly difficult to find the website your looking for and drastically reduces its traffic

>> No.25763859

>>25763718
I think that we're saying the same thing. I mean a categorical ban based upon how a site attracts users and how they spread information. Social media is yellow journalism but on meth and cocaine.

>> No.25763868

>>25761026
You realize big tech control way more than just shitty social networks for normalfags, right? That's how they are able to cripple their opposition.
>Google, Microsoft and Apple own the three most used operating systems for consumer use in the world (Linux may triumph in servers, but is irrelevant in desktops and phones)
>Google and Microsoft own the two most popular search engines in the world
>Google and Apple own the two biggest app stores in the world
>Google, Microsoft and Amazon own the biggest 4 cloud services of the internet
>Google and Microsoft own the two biggest mail providers in the world
>Cloudflare acts as a MiTM for 1/4 of the internet
>Google and Cloudflare own the most used public DNS
>Google owns the most used video platform
>Facebook owns 2 of the most used social platforms and the most used message application
>Microsoft owns the most used Git platform in the world
>Google owns the most used browser in both desktop and phones
>Google also is the biggest investor of its browser's main competitor (Firefox)
>Microsoft owns the most used office suite
>Google, Facebook and Amazon have trackers on almost every page "thanks" to their multiple frameworks and services for website devs
used
And this is just from from an end user's point of view. These companies, and Google, Microsoft and Amazon in special, have their hands and eyes everywhere, not just on social platforms.

>> No.25763885

>>25763734
search engine is maybe the only elements where a state should be ok to intervene, if the entity running the #1 service discriminates based on their agenda, because a search engine is mostly the entry point of everything.
that has nothing to do with the censorship INSIDE those platforms, which is the subject

>> No.25763915

They should be shut down and their boards tried and convicted of crimes against humanity and publicly executed in a Minecraft simulation.

>> No.25763925
File: 64 KB, 710x703, 1608606970453.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
25763925

>>25760878
They should be attacked by islamic extremists

>> No.25763933

>>25761026
you must be american

>> No.25763956

>>25763381
Oh, yeah. I forgot about that one.
>Google is the biggest ad company in the world, to a point where they have so many different products and services with the sole intention of harvesting data from their users (and non-users thanks again to multiple trackers) in order to sell the info to God-knows-who and shove "accurate" ads down their throats

>> No.25763981
File: 1.35 MB, 850x826, Screen Shot 2021-01-09 at 10.07.46 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
25763981

>>25763665
>Please sir be ignoring da cesasheip from sociul mediah accahnts Let da big tick companiez be censaur you for you own good preeze! Just like in da maihnlahnd.

>> No.25764037

>>25763160
Fuck off tranny, and stop being such a commie.

>> No.25764072

>>25760878
Not necessarily full nationalization. But they should be assfucked with antitrust and forced to act more like a platform than a publisher.

>> No.25764112

>>25763981
Capitalism leads to optimization, and that leads to dependency on big companies, unless you support public blockchains as service provider.

>> No.25764131

>>25762974
>Only socialist fuckwits want to govern private social medias because they are large
Except it’s the left who are literally making your argument. Doesn’t that at least make you think.

>> No.25764166

>>25763859
It's a problem everywhere. Local independent media doesn't exist anymore because they're all reliant on advertisers. Ban any attempts by companies to influence people through media in any form.

>> No.25764235

>>25764112
I agree to an extent, but the government cannot allow private companies to edit and censor their PUBLIC forums unless they assume responsibility for the content posted therein.

>> No.25764293

>>25763981
I bet you're a socialist/communist

>>25763868
yes they provide a lot of service, a lot of bloat, and a few useful ones? I don't deny that they're big and they can spy on normies.
so what do you suggest? delete them? if it happens then another one will take their place. there's nothing wrong here. it's up to the user to make the good choice, use open source services, trust services that can be realistically trusted.
if you give them your information, it's your problem. I don't give my identity, my info to anyone, except amazon, because I want delivery

I can educate all of you to cybersecurity, but you'd probably have a better time visiting /g/, I think you really need to learn a bit about how computing works

>> No.25764307

>>25760878
Considering they have billions of users, YES. There is no forum as big as twitter or facebook.

I think they should be allowed to moderate some content but there is definitely a line for censoring political beliefs that are not inciting violence.

>> No.25764308

>>25763885
okay so why don't you take it one step further and say social media companies shouldn't be allowed to censor on the basis of political belief ? I see no downside unless you're private company purist who rejects government interference out of principle. We did it with big oil, big steel, and the like before.

>> No.25764386
File: 6 KB, 250x201, 1609877116046s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
25764386

>>25764293
Go read some history books about the railroad and oil monopolies. That is, if you can even open your slant eyes wide enough to read it. Project much?

>> No.25764403

should phone companies decide who can phone who? no

>> No.25764479

>>25764308
because I'm not a socialist/communist that seethe and cry at the state for no important reason whenever an entity becomes shit
yeah you can tell I reject government interference by default. normies want that a lot. tells a lot. governments are required, but rarely, in the case of platform censorship there's a hundreds way it can go very wrong

>> No.25764480

>>25762508
Alfabet (google) has monopolized:
Online video (which is not profitable by the way. They only host youtube to mind-control people), online ads, search engines, email, education, cloud storage, and is now trying to overtake paypal. they also have a major stake in the self driving car market.

Amazon has monopolized:
ECommerce (Nearly a complete monopoly) (again this is not a profitable venture, it only exists for influence so that they can make people reliant on them for goods), web hosting (amazon's main business, AWS), livestreaming (twitch), Home security and smart home services (government surveillance systems)(ring/alexa).
facebook has monopolized:
Social media. Seriously they have a massive stranglehold on social media, they own like 5/8 of the most popular US based social media sites.

>> No.25764488

>>25764293
>I don't give my identity, my info to anyone, except amazon
They probably know who you are regardless. I'm sure you heard of shadow profiles. And you won't see a cent for your data that was used.

>> No.25764544

>>25764293
>so what do you suggest?
Put heavy regulations on how much data corporations in general (not just big tech ones) can collect from users and use with and without their explicit knowledge and agreement, starting with a ban on targeted advertisement since that's the ultimate goal of a lot of the shit they currently do.

>> No.25764612
File: 132 KB, 917x1024, 53452612626.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
25764612

>>25760878

>> No.25764613
File: 12 KB, 276x182, download.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
25764613

the trash company can't refuse service if you're a shitlord. why is this allowed?

>> No.25764638

This is /biz/ bro. Should we be shorting tech stocks?

>> No.25764643

>>25764293
Its funny you say that. Communist allegations have always been the main tactic used to counter those who want to break up trusts. These companies are a blatant violation of the sherman antitrust act OF 1890. 1890. This is not a communist thing to do, trusts must be broken up to ensure a truly free market.

>> No.25764654

>>25760878
YES

>> No.25764677

>>25764638
I'm not in stocks, but it does sound bearish that tech companies are now at a point where they are able to censor a world leader and think they are going to get away with it.

>> No.25764698

>>25760878
Yes

>> No.25764709

>>25764479
>because I'm not a socialist/communist that seethe and cry at the state for no important reason whenever an entity becomes shit
okay so you admit that you're an ideological purist who's letting his ascribed ideology get in the way of common sense.
>in the case of platform censorship there's a hundreds way it can go very wrong
What they start censoring people? How is that any different from what we have now? You're just fine getting raped in the ass as long as it's not the government doing it. All that has to happen is have legislation that states, to these companies, you abide by the first amendment principles of freedom of expression or get shut down. That's literally all I want.

>> No.25764727

>>25764037
>Defending fascism and censorship.
>Voted Biden.
>Calls anyone a commie.
You're a real life meme.

>> No.25764729

>>25764544
We have to outlaw the way in which they spread information. It is a threat to society.

>> No.25764736

>>25764480
and your point is? just watch for bias on search engines. and no they don't have a monopoly on education

>>25764488
I don't care about suppositions of a company on who I may be, what I may like. if they don't have my real name, my email, or other personal data, they don't know me. browsing leaves data behind, maybe one day it won't, but I don't really care, I don't fill forms I don't want

>> No.25764740

>>25762550
>>25762615
this is a good take but your samefagging is embarassing

>> No.25764854

>>25764736
They are actively destroying society on an ideological and intellectual level all for profit.

>> No.25764878
File: 187 KB, 251x380, thisisreallifenow.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
25764878

>>25764677
And to add on, if they do get away with it. Welp, see you all in the slums. Pic related.

>> No.25764976

>>25764736
>if they don't have my real name, my email, or other personal data, they don't know me.
This level of mental retardation is impossible.

>> No.25764979

>>25764709
I have common sense as proven by my points in my various messages, which I believe make sense, to me
yeah ok sure, ask what you want to the government, I don't want to have anything with that, just realize that the more people ask their daddy state to intervene the more problems you'll have, governments just like companies are made up of individuals, which may be even more retarded

>> No.25765058

>>25764979
Get a load of this retard. Hint: just because your points make sense to your mongoloid brain does not mean that they are in any way valid or sensible. Suck a dick Chang.

>> No.25765072
File: 130 KB, 785x1000, a8c.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
25765072

>>25764976
>nooo I'm good with computers I can't be wrong
seriously who cares about a string of number and habits you can fake, they cannot know if you're the same person on the same computer, they can't know your real identity, only your ISP can

>> No.25765200

>>25765058
the only point you made in every post was "platforms too big must be broken down", and "you're a retard if you disagree"
maybe learn to give reasons on why you are not the retard

>> No.25765247

>>25760878
cope, and fuck off back to pol

>> No.25765248

>>25764979
>have common sense as proven by my points in my various messages, which I believe make sense, to me
I disagree with most of them.
>just realize that the more people ask their daddy state to intervene the more problems you'll have
More libertarian garbage. Some governments work well some don't depends on who is in charge.
>governments just like companies are made up of individuals, which may be even more retarded
Yeah and those companies have an incredible control over your life.

>> No.25765322

>>25765248
frankly I'm sorry but I don't have time to waste
look at your arguments

>i disagree
>government good
>they control you

again those companies have the info you give them, and you have the choice to not use them
good night

>> No.25765340

>>25765200
It isn't my job to spoonfeed you basic intuition on the dangers of massive tech monopolies being able to censor people whenever they want. Soulless bugs just do not get it. Sad!

>> No.25765662

>>25765322
>look at your arguments
I've been arguing with you this whole thread. If I said anymore I'd just be repeating myself, scroll up if you need a refresher.
>government good
>government bad
it depends on who rules - that's my opinion.
>again those companies have the info you give them, and you have the choice to not use them
good night
Choosing not to use tech for communication would be like refusing to use oil or coal during the industrial revolution. You're just trying to justify getting screwed by giant mega corps.

>> No.25765734

>>25761707
>public space
no

>> No.25765749

>>25761707
>yes. Social Media is the public space of the 21st century, they're American companies and should be subject to first amendment regulation.
You're really so naive as to believe that if websites become regulated by the government, they'll won't hunt people down for hate speech, right?

>> No.25765804

>>25765734
>>25765749
Obvious CCP shills
FUCK OFF CHINKS

>> No.25765827

>>25763157
>Those platforms are too large to be private
Do you suggest regulating websites depending on the amount of traffic they receive?

>> No.25765859

>>25765804
Chinks regulate their segment of the internet

>> No.25765891

>>25765662
that's retarded, social media is not like oil or coal, email is mostly used for communication in the corporate world if you didn't know, and websites are the intended way to share content/information, I don't care if you think otherwise, I don't want to be part of that miserable new world

>>25765340
>big companies bad daddy help me
yeah whatever, you advocate for what you like in your country
maybe try to live without social media one day

>> No.25765898

>>25765734
retard.

>>25765749
no different from what happens now.
>call a nigger a nigger on the internet.
>get doxxed
>everyone harasses me

>> No.25765953

>>25765827
Yes, unironically. Public forums should be 100 percent accepting of free speech, no matter the kind. Also, it's pretty clear that there is growing ccp influence on the internet outside of their own confinement - but you already knew that didn't you?

>> No.25766064

>>25765898
>no different from what happens now.
Well, in U.K., Germany and some other countries they officially fine/imprison people for hate speech on social media, I guess you're OK with more of such regulation?

>call a nigger a nigger on the internet.
The urban masses in the U.S. appear to be politically correct to the extreme, and now you're hoping that the government will defend you from them.. How is that called?

>> No.25766126

>>25765953
"Public forums" are supposed to have the .gov domain, isn't it? If you suggest that "public forums" should be accepting of everything, then the government must create them in the first place.

>> No.25766146

>>25765891
If I have to use normie social media platforms to access news and information that I am interested in, those companies have no right to censor it from me. They use my data FOR FREE and sell it to the highest bidder. The tech and social media giants have built the railways for news essentially, because they can and do censor platforms that try to do their own thing: see Parler. What are you implying, that we should just build another GOOGLE???? Fuck off with your retarded bullshit. I need to know what's going on in my country and it is our right to have access to uncensored information ESPECIALLY IF THEY JUST PUSH EVERYONE ELSE OUT OF BUSINESS. These monopolies are orders of magnitudes larger than even the largest monopolies back in the day, and they must be stopped. The government exists to protect the freedoms of its citizens you dumb faggot, and it doesn't make them "daddy gov" for doing it.

>> No.25766209

>>25766126
Retarded take. The government is shit at creating things that actually work well as a product. The private sector is obviously important for better quality products and faster development. IF you knew how to read, you'd understand this.

>> No.25766210

>>25766146
But anon, on social media, they don't post the news directly, they post links to third-party websites...

>> No.25766274

>>25766064
>Well, in U.K., Germany and some other countries they officially fine/imprison people for hate speech on social media, I guess you're OK with more of such regulation?
It's inevitable given the demographic trajectory of the US anyway. Doesn't change the fact that big tech should still be subject to constitutional governance.
>and now you're hoping that the government will defend you from them.. How is that called?
No. I never said this I can defend myself just fine. I anticipate a south africa type scenario for whites. Done arguing with people putting words in my mouth.

>> No.25766277

>>25766210
What's the difference? They can block those sites too just like they did to Parler. They can block any site that doesn't conform to their narrative which is my entire point you brainlet. They can even ban the people who post the link in the first place. Are you really this dense or are you just trolling?

>> No.25766294

>social media
>public utility

fuck off

>> No.25766325

>>25766209
Wait a minute, how can the government be shit at anything? I thought it can protect us from the evil tech monopolies, hate speech and other atrocities.

>> No.25766344

>>25766294
>what are native monopolies

>> No.25766372

>>25766294
>You don't have to use the railroads bro just walk lmao
I guess you don't think the internet is a public utility either huh?

>> No.25766389

>>25766277
I'm saying that no one forces you to consume the news from social media. You can read news and curated content of your preference from any website.

>> No.25766422

>>25766325
regulation=/=product
>>25766389
They are establishing a precedent of censoring platforms that disagree with the narrative on big media you fool. What do you not understand about this?

>> No.25766435

>>25766372
>>25766344
Are you really comparing websites (i.e. web domains, unlimited by nature) with inherently scarce and limited resources?

>> No.25766471

None of these proposed solutions seem severe enough considering the stakes. I suggest burning down all the media and tech companies and salting the earth where they stood.
>>25766389
>you have a choice
I did until they were either bought out or pushed out of business through the big players taking a temporary loss.

>> No.25766501

>>25766435
How exactly are web domains unlimited when AWS, Google, Microsoft, etc own all the cloud storage and servers? Please stand up and explain it for all of us while we laugh in your face.

>> No.25766528

>>25766471
Carthago delenda est.

>> No.25766548

>>25766422
>regulation=/=product
OK, now you're saying that another company is supposed to create a "public forum" on behalf of the government. Why can't the government simply grant them the .gov domain so that we can clearly see what's public utility and what's not?

>They are establishing a precedent of censoring platforms that disagree with the narrative on big media you fool. What do you not understand about this?
The internet is a collection of curated content, isn't this obvious? Every website curates content in the way it prefers. Imagine calling the government for help, thinking it will help...

>> No.25766553

>>25760878
Yes
FAGMAN

>> No.25766613

>>25761707
Hahaha fuck that bastard he should be banned along w his shit family. He also hates btc so fuck him

>> No.25766620

>>25766501
Web domains are unlimited because anyone can register any domain possible, assuming it's not taken. A domain can be connected to any server on Earth.

However, an individual or a company cannot get such domains as .gov, .edu and .mil. Aren't these reserved for "public utilities"? It's pretty confusing to mark a commercial domain as public.

>> No.25766681

>>25761707
>Absolutely fucking not. How can you say this without an ounce of sarcasm after they systematically banned a sitting president from their platforms yesterday?
Give me a break, man. Trump got banned for continuously violating their terms of service, you jackhole. They should've banned him years ago, but they felt that because he's the President, doing so would've denied the public "important information from the President". But now that he's a lame duck that has less than two weeks to go and a whole lot of desire to stir shit up, hell yeah, Twitter's gonna ban him.
>Muh "1st amendment right are getting trampled"
Losing you ability to shitpost on Twitter isn't losing your rights to free speech. If the government sends agents to arrest you and punish you because you said Trump or Biden sucks, then that would be a violation. Trump is more than welcome to call into Fox News or use the press room that he has barely used to air his grievances.

>> No.25766718

>>25766620
You are intentionally obfuscating my argument because you either don't understand or you are shilling for censorship. I am talking about the average everyday person that will be subject to the whims of what FAGMAN wants to show them. I won't be swayed by it because I can always find alternative sources of media. Think about the mind of the average normie and then realize that if alternative sources of info become more and more difficult to find, they will just go back to blindly believing whatever is told to them. At least without censorship there's a chance normans have a change of heart. What happens when they can just straight up lie about current policy and global scale events?

>> No.25766926

>>25766718
>I am talking about the average everyday person that will be subject to the whims of what FAGMAN wants to show them.

Yeah, it's pretty sad that the masses are biased in such a pitiful way. Alas. But you seem oblivious of the fact that it's the American urban and metropolitan population that you can't connect with, hence the conflict of values. A problem of a totally different nature than asking the government to regulate websites more heavily, which, well, won't do it in your favor anyway.

>> No.25767046

>>25760878
Probably not. There is no way for you to switch sewer or gas provider. But you can easily switch or avoid some tech product.

>> No.25767239
File: 692 KB, 1422x778, Screen Shot 2021-01-09 at 11.53.28 PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] [report]
25767239

>>25766926
The regulations that are necessary for big tech are only to stop them enforcing the clear biases they have for their own CEO's/staff's political leanings. It is unacceptable for them to shut down entire platforms like Parler because they don't agree with what is being discussed there. That is what the gov needs to stop from happening. I agree that it is dangerous for radicalization to be allowed to fester, but that type of thing doesn't happen on facebook anyway because it is tied to a real identity, it happens on deeper more secluded parts of the internet. As some anon mentioned earlier, free speech won't stop people who disagree with you from doxxing you. Real life conversations carry the same risk essentially. Logically, if this is allowed to continue, what's stopping big tech from listening in to our conversations and then banning us preemptively from ever even speaking out about something? It's my choice if I want to risk calling someone a nigger or call for a coup with my real identity.

>> No.25767631

>>25767239
>The regulations that are necessary for big tech are only to stop them enforcing the clear biases they have for their own CEO's/staff's political leanings.
It's not just their CEOs that are biased. The entire urban America is biased in exactly the same way. Hence the problem of a different kind: you have two different physical worlds sharing the same web space. So why bother if you can't change their minds anyway?

Which brings us back: your website = your rules. Get rid of the habit of supplying free content to someone else's website (social networks) when you're not even paid for it.

By the way,
>because it is tied to a real identity
This is actually the only shit that needs to be prohibited. But with the government stepping in, you'll get the opposite. Mandatory KYC verification everywhere.

>> No.25767799

>>25760878
Wait until big tech bends the knee to API3.

>> No.25767900

>>25767631
It seems we agree on somethings. However, what is to stop them from attacking sites like 4chan where free discussion can occur? As far as a personally owned website, there is a long way to climb to get any sort of userbase. Also you would have to pay for servers and run them at cost because advertisers are owned by big tech as well. Zero revenue and running a site at cost is not feasible for many people. Unless some based /bizraeli/ decides to create their own internet based on the blockchain. I am optimistic that censorship will not prevail, but it is very concerning to me that so many people are asking for it, whether they realize it or not. Tyranny of the masses is real.

>> No.25768557

>>25760878
>Should Big Tech companies be regulated as public utilities?
no but the monopoly's they have should be broken

>>
Name (leave empty)
Comment (leave empty)
Name
E-mail
Subject
Comment
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.
Captcha
Action