Subj : Re: computer chronicles:
To   : Ron Lauzon
From : Daniel
Date : Mon Apr 27 2020 15:19:00

-=> Ron Lauzon wrote to Daniel <=-

 -=> Daniel wrote to August Abolins <=-

 Da> Even into the late 90s, it was the provider's liability if users did
 Da> illegal activity using their systems. Sysops were forced to monitor
 Da> user activity on their bbs's. My sysop watched everything I did. Sort
 Da> of creepy. Less than a year ago, congress was threatening facebook adn
 Da> all the other providers with taking the legislation away. The speaker
 Da> said they were taking advantage of the law and it can be taken away. I
 Da> thought it was funny as if she was sitting on top fo the government and
 Da> was holding all the power. That threat fell flat. But anyway, the late
 Da> 90s gave the provider relief from this liability.

 RL> The law you are referring to was based on the argument that, "If we
 RL> need to vet everything everyone says on our systems, we can't run our
 RL> systems and people lose a way to communicate."  So the gov't basically
 RL> extended a right already given to the phone company.  If someone
 RL> commits a crime via the phone, the phone company cannot be held
 RL> responsible because they are neutral 3rd party - or in the case of this
 RL> law, a "platform" for communication.

 RL> But then the big Leftie companies started suppressing non-Leftie
 RL> communication.
 RL>  Some people said "Hey!  Wait a minute!  You said that you couldn't do
 RL> that and run your systems.  So, stop suppressing speech or we will
 RL> revoke your protection."

 RL> The big Leftie companies said "OK", but really didn't change much.
 RL> They just gave their speech suppression better sounding names.  Like
 RL> "keeping misinformation down" or "cracking down on Hate Speech".

Don't forget the buzzwords such as 'violent speech.' That's my favorite.

I'm really torn though. These companies have tons of power but are also public
companies. They're under no obligation to follow the constitutional free speech
protections because they're not the government. Nor should they. On the other
hand, their downfall will be the very act of censorship/discrimination that
they practice.

I'll defend their choice just as I defend the wedding cake baker who refuses to
bake for gay weddings. While I think his religious justification was about as
weak as the left's, it's his choice to limit the success of his business. So be
it if he hates gay people. That's small fries compared to the list of whole
groups the left hate. It's his choice to deny business to whomever he see's
fit. What I don't like is how the press picks and chooses who they define as
having a right to operate their business. If you're on the right, you have no
right. If you're on the left, different story.

It's disgusting that Alex Jones, a complete nutjob, has been silenced and
de-platformed. I don't particularly like the guy and I don't listen to him, but
I also don't agree with silencing him. The left has descended completely into a
deeply fascist pattern from which Idoubt they'll ever recover.

This is why I feel the democratic party is dead. I call them the democrat party
now. In another thread, I said that their ethos is fragile. AOC is evidence of
it. Her barside politics tore them to shreds and she didn't even try and she
did in a year what people haven't done in a century.

.. 

.... Visit me at: gopher://gcpp.world
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.49
 * Origin: Digital Distortion: digdist.synchro.net (1:340/7)

.