Conversation

Notices

1. Verius (verius@community.highlandarrow.com)'s status on Sunday, 19-Aug-2018 05:12:49 EDT Verius
   A thought. It is hereabouts (EU) considered a very bad thing if companies who's combined market share is a significant part of the total market cooperate to the detriment of the consumer. Accepting as a premise the notion that an online social media provider such as Twitter has the right to ban people from using its services as it pleases just as a company has the right to set prices as it pleases does it not make sense to think of a coordinated move to deny people access to a platform as an equally undesirable analogue to classical pricing cartels? That is, if all major social media companies cooperate to deny platform to a single user should not other rules apply than for a single non-monopoly platform?
   1. Verius (verius@community.highlandarrow.com)'s status on Sunday, 19-Aug-2018 05:17:10 EDT Verius

      in reply to
      Note that for all I've heard of Alex Jones he's a real piece of work and sometimes crosses a moral line in my book. But I'm pretty firmly of the belief that action that effectively denies someone the ability to speak to people who are willing to listen should be the result of laws and regulations subject to judicial review and preferably the result of a specific court case.
      1. Annah (maiyannah@community.highlandarrow.com)'s status on Sunday, 19-Aug-2018 11:48:49 EDT Annah

         in reply to
         @verius I would rather someone be able to speak and tell me they're a moron, than rob everyone of the ability to speak because they might be one.
   2. Annah (maiyannah@community.highlandarrow.com)'s status on Sunday, 19-Aug-2018 11:52:27 EDT Annah

      in reply to
      @verius This is exactly what it is, but they get away with it because they target people who are not popular politically and the companies can turn it about on the customer by asking why they're defending people we otherwise consider rephrehensible.