Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Facebook Removing All Content That Mentions ‘Stop the Steal’ Ahead of Inauguration Day
Comments
-
okTheKobeStopper said:
@GrundleStiltzkinRaceBannon said:I'm fine with all these people and companies revealing themselves for who they are
The pendulum always swings back. Its physics. Action brings reaction and everything decays to another form
I can’t believe you don’t see it.
The pendulum always swing back... -
Right, but countless users have violated the terms of use. Twitter simply can't ever apply a consistent standard given their volume of activity, so it's always going to come across as cherry-picking. And the outcry that generates far outweighs any reasonable silencing of idiots on the platform. But either way, that's a minor quibble of mine and I really couldn't give two shits at the end of the day.AOG said:
It's not good for business for those companies to ban users. But what are they supposed to do since Trump was already on triple probation for violating the terms of use? In fact Twitter stock plummeted following...GreenRiverGatorz said:
Then that's disappointing, because it's already a pretty tepid statement. The ACLU should be absolutely terrified that an oligopolistic company, or group of, can effectively decide who gets to run a business or voice their opinion on what has become essentially the only medium for public dialogue. And they can do so with absolute impunity.AOG said:I don't think that counts as a statement from the ACLU. It came from one lawyer (Steve Herman or Kate R.) of the ACLU who may simply be voicing his own opinion. NOt sure though.
But the AWS banning is a lot more troubling. In the current era we're in, web hosting service providers are essentially utilities. They keep the lights on for every digital company, platform, and website out there. The amount of economic activity that is facilitated through AWS, Azure, and Google alone is staggering. And given that enormous responsibility, and the concentration of market power that they have, that they can unilaterally police who can even access the internet is a huge fucking problem. We as a country have essentially outsourced widespread censorship power to an oligopoly. That's such a fundamental threat and that the ACLU, who I used to be a card-carrying member of, isn't more outraged is itself an outrage. -
They've really fallen off their mission statement these last five years.SFGbob said:
Anyone who foolishly believed that the ACLU was still a Civil Rights organization is pretty naive.doogie said:The great awakening here that the ACLU is anything but a Democrat political action committee is precious
-
You can't see what exists only in your fevered imagination
-
Right.alumni94 said:Twitter and Facebook stock still down. Not a good business plan to drop thousands of people and content.
well, countless users probably do violate the terms, but only one is empowered to incite an insurrection to topple the oldest democracy and replace it with himself as dictator. Of course the bastard should be banned and cut off so long as it is legal, which it is. A good analogy is cops don't stop everybody speeding a few miles over the speed limit. But if you are doing 200 mph down I-5 you will get stopped and your license stripped.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Right, but countless users have violated the terms of use. Twitter simply can't ever apply a consistent standard given their volume of activity, so it's always going to come across as cherry-picking. And the outcry that generates far outweighs any reasonable silencing of idiots on the platform. But either way, that's a minor quibble of mine and I really couldn't give two shits at the end of the day.AOG said:
It's not good for business for those companies to ban users. But what are they supposed to do since Trump was already on triple probation for violating the terms of use? In fact Twitter stock plummeted following...GreenRiverGatorz said:
Then that's disappointing, because it's already a pretty tepid statement. The ACLU should be absolutely terrified that an oligopolistic company, or group of, can effectively decide who gets to run a business or voice their opinion on what has become essentially the only medium for public dialogue. And they can do so with absolute impunity.AOG said:I don't think that counts as a statement from the ACLU. It came from one lawyer (Steve Herman or Kate R.) of the ACLU who may simply be voicing his own opinion. NOt sure though.
But the AWS banning is a lot more troubling. In the current era we're in, web hosting service providers are essentially utilities. They keep the lights on for every digital company, platform, and website out there. The amount of economic activity that is facilitated through AWS, Azure, and Google alone is staggering. And given that enormous responsibility, and the concentration of market power that they have, that they can unilaterally police who can even access the internet is a huge fucking problem. We as a country have essentially outsourced widespread censorship power to an oligopoly. That's such a fundamental threat and that the ACLU, who I used to be a card-carrying member of, isn't more outraged is itself an outrage. -
Where I live is 100% fiber optics and taxpayers helped pay for it. Isn’t any web service using this grid simply a quasi-public company? It reminds me a tiny bit, don’t twist, of central planning and how the USSR used to shut off power and water to the former republics to quell occasional uprisings. A guy I work with immigrated from Lithuania after the fall of the Soviet bloc and has told me stories of being without power for days when Lithuanian nationalists would get a little rowdy and would assault the Russian military occupiers in the country.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Right, but countless users have violated the terms of use. Twitter simply can't ever apply a consistent standard given their volume of activity, so it's always going to come across as cherry-picking. And the outcry that generates far outweighs any reasonable silencing of idiots on the platform. But either way, that's a minor quibble of mine and I really couldn't give two shits at the end of the day.AOG said:
It's not good for business for those companies to ban users. But what are they supposed to do since Trump was already on triple probation for violating the terms of use? In fact Twitter stock plummeted following...GreenRiverGatorz said:
Then that's disappointing, because it's already a pretty tepid statement. The ACLU should be absolutely terrified that an oligopolistic company, or group of, can effectively decide who gets to run a business or voice their opinion on what has become essentially the only medium for public dialogue. And they can do so with absolute impunity.AOG said:I don't think that counts as a statement from the ACLU. It came from one lawyer (Steve Herman or Kate R.) of the ACLU who may simply be voicing his own opinion. NOt sure though.
But the AWS banning is a lot more troubling. In the current era we're in, web hosting service providers are essentially utilities. They keep the lights on for every digital company, platform, and website out there. The amount of economic activity that is facilitated through AWS, Azure, and Google alone is staggering. And given that enormous responsibility, and the concentration of market power that they have, that they can unilaterally police who can even access the internet is a huge fucking problem. We as a country have essentially outsourced widespread censorship power to an oligopoly. That's such a fundamental threat and that the ACLU, who I used to be a card-carrying member of, isn't more outraged is itself an outrage.
Control water, food, and power grid and you control the population. -
That's essentially how I see it. PSE can't shut down service to a building because they deem the owner to be a fuckwad. Web hosting should be in the same category. In this day and age it functions no differently than any other fundamental utility.NorthwestFresh said:
Where I live is 100% fiber optics and taxpayers helped pay for it. Isn’t any web service using this grid simply a quasi-public company? It reminds me a tiny bit, don’t twist, of central planning and how the USSR used to shut off power and water to the former republics to quell occasional uprisings. A guy I work with immigrated from Lithuania after the fall of the Soviet bloc and has told me stories of being without power for days when Lithuanian nationalists would get a little rowdy and would assault the Russian military occupiers in the country.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Right, but countless users have violated the terms of use. Twitter simply can't ever apply a consistent standard given their volume of activity, so it's always going to come across as cherry-picking. And the outcry that generates far outweighs any reasonable silencing of idiots on the platform. But either way, that's a minor quibble of mine and I really couldn't give two shits at the end of the day.AOG said:
It's not good for business for those companies to ban users. But what are they supposed to do since Trump was already on triple probation for violating the terms of use? In fact Twitter stock plummeted following...GreenRiverGatorz said:
Then that's disappointing, because it's already a pretty tepid statement. The ACLU should be absolutely terrified that an oligopolistic company, or group of, can effectively decide who gets to run a business or voice their opinion on what has become essentially the only medium for public dialogue. And they can do so with absolute impunity.AOG said:I don't think that counts as a statement from the ACLU. It came from one lawyer (Steve Herman or Kate R.) of the ACLU who may simply be voicing his own opinion. NOt sure though.
But the AWS banning is a lot more troubling. In the current era we're in, web hosting service providers are essentially utilities. They keep the lights on for every digital company, platform, and website out there. The amount of economic activity that is facilitated through AWS, Azure, and Google alone is staggering. And given that enormous responsibility, and the concentration of market power that they have, that they can unilaterally police who can even access the internet is a huge fucking problem. We as a country have essentially outsourced widespread censorship power to an oligopoly. That's such a fundamental threat and that the ACLU, who I used to be a card-carrying member of, isn't more outraged is itself an outrage.
Control water, food, and power grid and you control the population. -
California was threatening to shut power because of 'vid violations.GreenRiverGatorz said:
That's essentially how I see it. PSE can't shut down service to a building because they deem the owner to be a fuckwad. Web hosting should be in the same category. In this day and age it functions no differently than any other fundamental utility.NorthwestFresh said:
Where I live is 100% fiber optics and taxpayers helped pay for it. Isn’t any web service using this grid simply a quasi-public company? It reminds me a tiny bit, don’t twist, of central planning and how the USSR used to shut off power and water to the former republics to quell occasional uprisings. A guy I work with immigrated from Lithuania after the fall of the Soviet bloc and has told me stories of being without power for days when Lithuanian nationalists would get a little rowdy and would assault the Russian military occupiers in the country.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Right, but countless users have violated the terms of use. Twitter simply can't ever apply a consistent standard given their volume of activity, so it's always going to come across as cherry-picking. And the outcry that generates far outweighs any reasonable silencing of idiots on the platform. But either way, that's a minor quibble of mine and I really couldn't give two shits at the end of the day.AOG said:
It's not good for business for those companies to ban users. But what are they supposed to do since Trump was already on triple probation for violating the terms of use? In fact Twitter stock plummeted following...GreenRiverGatorz said:
Then that's disappointing, because it's already a pretty tepid statement. The ACLU should be absolutely terrified that an oligopolistic company, or group of, can effectively decide who gets to run a business or voice their opinion on what has become essentially the only medium for public dialogue. And they can do so with absolute impunity.AOG said:I don't think that counts as a statement from the ACLU. It came from one lawyer (Steve Herman or Kate R.) of the ACLU who may simply be voicing his own opinion. NOt sure though.
But the AWS banning is a lot more troubling. In the current era we're in, web hosting service providers are essentially utilities. They keep the lights on for every digital company, platform, and website out there. The amount of economic activity that is facilitated through AWS, Azure, and Google alone is staggering. And given that enormous responsibility, and the concentration of market power that they have, that they can unilaterally police who can even access the internet is a huge fucking problem. We as a country have essentially outsourced widespread censorship power to an oligopoly. That's such a fundamental threat and that the ACLU, who I used to be a card-carrying member of, isn't more outraged is itself an outrage.
Control water, food, and power grid and you control the population.
-
Which is bonkers levels of big brotherismGrundleStiltzkin said:
California was threatening to shut power because of 'vid violations.GreenRiverGatorz said:
That's essentially how I see it. PSE can't shut down service to a building because they deem the owner to be a fuckwad. Web hosting should be in the same category. In this day and age it functions no differently than any other fundamental utility.NorthwestFresh said:
Where I live is 100% fiber optics and taxpayers helped pay for it. Isn’t any web service using this grid simply a quasi-public company? It reminds me a tiny bit, don’t twist, of central planning and how the USSR used to shut off power and water to the former republics to quell occasional uprisings. A guy I work with immigrated from Lithuania after the fall of the Soviet bloc and has told me stories of being without power for days when Lithuanian nationalists would get a little rowdy and would assault the Russian military occupiers in the country.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Right, but countless users have violated the terms of use. Twitter simply can't ever apply a consistent standard given their volume of activity, so it's always going to come across as cherry-picking. And the outcry that generates far outweighs any reasonable silencing of idiots on the platform. But either way, that's a minor quibble of mine and I really couldn't give two shits at the end of the day.AOG said:
It's not good for business for those companies to ban users. But what are they supposed to do since Trump was already on triple probation for violating the terms of use? In fact Twitter stock plummeted following...GreenRiverGatorz said:
Then that's disappointing, because it's already a pretty tepid statement. The ACLU should be absolutely terrified that an oligopolistic company, or group of, can effectively decide who gets to run a business or voice their opinion on what has become essentially the only medium for public dialogue. And they can do so with absolute impunity.AOG said:I don't think that counts as a statement from the ACLU. It came from one lawyer (Steve Herman or Kate R.) of the ACLU who may simply be voicing his own opinion. NOt sure though.
But the AWS banning is a lot more troubling. In the current era we're in, web hosting service providers are essentially utilities. They keep the lights on for every digital company, platform, and website out there. The amount of economic activity that is facilitated through AWS, Azure, and Google alone is staggering. And given that enormous responsibility, and the concentration of market power that they have, that they can unilaterally police who can even access the internet is a huge fucking problem. We as a country have essentially outsourced widespread censorship power to an oligopoly. That's such a fundamental threat and that the ACLU, who I used to be a card-carrying member of, isn't more outraged is itself an outrage.
Control water, food, and power grid and you control the population. -
They did it and still doGrundleStiltzkin said:
California was threatening to shut power because of 'vid violations.GreenRiverGatorz said:
That's essentially how I see it. PSE can't shut down service to a building because they deem the owner to be a fuckwad. Web hosting should be in the same category. In this day and age it functions no differently than any other fundamental utility.NorthwestFresh said:
Where I live is 100% fiber optics and taxpayers helped pay for it. Isn’t any web service using this grid simply a quasi-public company? It reminds me a tiny bit, don’t twist, of central planning and how the USSR used to shut off power and water to the former republics to quell occasional uprisings. A guy I work with immigrated from Lithuania after the fall of the Soviet bloc and has told me stories of being without power for days when Lithuanian nationalists would get a little rowdy and would assault the Russian military occupiers in the country.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Right, but countless users have violated the terms of use. Twitter simply can't ever apply a consistent standard given their volume of activity, so it's always going to come across as cherry-picking. And the outcry that generates far outweighs any reasonable silencing of idiots on the platform. But either way, that's a minor quibble of mine and I really couldn't give two shits at the end of the day.AOG said:
It's not good for business for those companies to ban users. But what are they supposed to do since Trump was already on triple probation for violating the terms of use? In fact Twitter stock plummeted following...GreenRiverGatorz said:
Then that's disappointing, because it's already a pretty tepid statement. The ACLU should be absolutely terrified that an oligopolistic company, or group of, can effectively decide who gets to run a business or voice their opinion on what has become essentially the only medium for public dialogue. And they can do so with absolute impunity.AOG said:I don't think that counts as a statement from the ACLU. It came from one lawyer (Steve Herman or Kate R.) of the ACLU who may simply be voicing his own opinion. NOt sure though.
But the AWS banning is a lot more troubling. In the current era we're in, web hosting service providers are essentially utilities. They keep the lights on for every digital company, platform, and website out there. The amount of economic activity that is facilitated through AWS, Azure, and Google alone is staggering. And given that enormous responsibility, and the concentration of market power that they have, that they can unilaterally police who can even access the internet is a huge fucking problem. We as a country have essentially outsourced widespread censorship power to an oligopoly. That's such a fundamental threat and that the ACLU, who I used to be a card-carrying member of, isn't more outraged is itself an outrage.
Control water, food, and power grid and you control the population.
