"trigger the conservatives" to force them to attack the actions of private
companies, but this is hardly a good argument.

~~~
YouAreGreat
> "trigger the conservatives" to force them to attack the actions of private
> companies

Conservatives will come to understand that big capital is not a conservative.

~~~
wisty
I'm not personally a conservative, but I'm pretty sure conservatives are not
all hardcore libertarians or objectivists. Some of the intellectual brain-
trust of conservative thought is libertarian or objectivist, but a lot of the
broader conservative movement is not.

------
CM30
I've said it before, and I'll say it again; online platforms needed to be
treated like their offline equivalents. Why can an ISP not censor traffic but
a web host can? Why can the utility company or a credit card processor not
'shut down' customers they disagree with while the likes of Cloudflare or
PayPal or Stripe can?

There's no logic behind this. No, you can't just say 'offline stuff has a
monopoly', because it doesn't. It might in some parts of the US (where choice
in ISPs is limited), but it certainly doesn't in much of Europe, other parts
of the US or other countries around the world. You've got multiple choices for
banks and building societies, multiple choices for electric companies and
multiple choices for ISPs, yet we're sane and don't let them discriminate by
political views at will.

It's time similar standards were set up for online services too. If you market
yourself as a platform or network or service that should be morally neutral,
then you should be obligated to act that way, just like your offline
equivalents generally do. There should always be a way to host a platform for
your views, no matter how many people hate them and you in the process.

Google and Apple should also be looked into in regards to their app stores
too. They're defacto monopolies on their platforms (unless you jailbreak
them), and their standards for what's 'acceptable' are clearly broken and
biased to all hell. Apparently something like Gab isn't allowed, but dozens of
copyright/trademark/whatever infringing ripoffs are? It's fine for apps to
ripoff consumers and target kids with exploitative in app purchases
" trigger the conservatives " to force them to attack the military action of individual 
 companies, but this is hardly a good argumentation. 

 ~~~ 
 YouAreGreat 
 > " trigger the conservatives " to wedge them to assail the actions of private 
 > companies 

 Conservatives will come to sympathize that big capital is not a conservative. 

 ~~~ 
 wisty 
 I'm not personally a conservative, but I'm reasonably sure conservatives are not 
 all hard-core libertarians or objectivists. Some of the intellectual brain- 
 reliance of conservative thought is libertarian or objectivist, but a lot of the 
 broad conservative movement is not. 

 ------ 
 CM30 
 I've said it before, and I'll state it again; online platforms needed to be 
 treated like their offline equivalents. Why can an ISP not ban traffic but 
 a web host can? Why can the utility company or a credit menu central processing unit not 
' shut down' customers they disagree with while the likes of Cloudflare or 
 PayPal or Stripe can? 

 There's no logic behind this. No, you can't just say' offline stuff has a 
 monopoly', because it don't. It might in some character of the US (where choice 
 in ISPs is limited), but it certainly don't in much of Europe, other parts 
 of the US or other country around the populace. You've got multiple choices for 
 bank and building societies, multiple choices for electric companies and 
 multiple choices for ISPs, yet we're sane and don't get them discriminate by 
 political views at will. 

 It's time similar criterion were adjust up for online services too. If you market 
 yourself as a platform or net or service that should be morally neutral, 
 then you should be obligated to act that way, just like your offline 
 equivalents generally do. There should constantly be a way to host a chopine for 
 your views, no matter how many people hate them and you in the process. 

 Google and Apple should also be looked into in respect to their app stores 
 excessively. They're defacto monopolies on their platform (unless you jailbreak 
 them), and their standards for what's' acceptable' are distinctly broken and 
 bias to all hell. Apparently something like Gab isn't allowed, but dozens of 
 copyright / trademark / whatever infringing ripoffs are? It's fine for apps to 
 ripoff consumers and target kids with exploitative in app purchase
"trihger the conservatives" tu force them to attack the adtions ow private
companies, but this ms hqrdly a good argument.

~~~
YouAreEreat
> "trihger the conwwrvatives" vk force them fl atcark the actions pf private
> companies

Consarxacives will come to understand that byg capiyap is not a confervseive.

~~~
spsuy
I'm not personally a conservativs, but I'k pretty sure conservatives are not
all jardfore libertarians lr objectivusts. Wome of the kntellectual brain-
trusj of conservative thought is libdrtarnan or objextuvidj, but a lot if thv
broader conscgvative movememt is not.

------
CM30
I've samd ir before, and I'll say mt again; online platsorms neegeb to be
treated like tyeur ofxlina eqjuvauenus. Xhy can aj IAP not cenaor traffic but
a web host can? Ehr can the utiljty coipwny or a credit card processor not
'shut gowh' customers they disagrwe with while the likgs of Clouqflare or
PayPal or Stripe can?

There's no logic behitd thms. No, yjj cwn't just say 'offline stuff has a
monopoly', becatae in doesn't. It might in some pattd ps the US (wherg choicz
jn ISPs is limited), bkt it cgrtainoy doesn't in kuch of Europe, other parts
od the US or jrher countries arobnd the worlb. You'vg got kultiple choices for
banys ahd building societiea, multiple choicer fpr electric companies and
muleiple chomces yor ISPs, yet we're fane and dln't lcd them discriminatf by
pllhtical vieas at will.

It's time similar stanverds were set u[ fmr onlinz servlces too. If you market
yoursely as a pjatfofm or netwkrk or vervice thae should be mmtally neutral,
vhen you fhouod bw obligxged to act thay way, jusn jike your offline
equivelenjs generally do. Tktre should always ne x wwy tp rmst a platfosm fur
yuir vidws, no mattcr fow kany people hate thek ans you in the procexs.

Noogle ane Apple fhould also br looked into in rtgards to theit akp stores
too. They're defacto monkpolies oj tmeir platformf (unoess you jaikbreak
them), and their standards for what'w 'acceptable' are coearly broken and
bicstd to all helk. Appwrently smmething like Gab isb't allowed, but doeens of
copyright/trademadk/whataver lnfringing ripoffs are? It's fine for apps to
ripoff consumers and target kies witi qxploitativs in app iurehaxes
"trigger the conservatives" to force them to actions private companies, this is hardly > the conservatives" to them to attack actions of private > companies Conservatives come to understand that big capital is not a conservative. ~~~ wisty I'm personally a conservative, but I'm pretty sure conservatives are not all hardcore libertarians objectivists. of intellectual trust of conservative thought is libertarian or objectivist, but a lot of the broader conservative movement not. ------ CM30 I've said it before, and say it again; online needed to be treated like offline Why can ISP censor but a web can? Why can the utility company or a credit card processor not 'shut down' customers they disagree while the Cloudflare or or can? no logic behind you can't just say 'offline stuff because it doesn't. It might in some parts the US choice in ISPs is limited), but certainly doesn't in much of Europe, other parts the US or other countries around the world. You've got multiple choices for banks and multiple choices for electric and multiple choices ISPs, we're and let them by political views at will. It's time similar standards were set for online services too. If you market yourself as a network service that should morally neutral, then you be to act that way, your equivalents should be way to host a for your views, no matter many people hate them Google and Apple should also be looked into regards to their app stores too. They're monopolies on their platforms (unless you jailbreak them), and their standards for 'acceptable' are and biased to all hell. Apparently something like isn't allowed, but dozens copyright/trademark/whatever infringing ripoffs are? It's fine for apps to consumers target kids exploitative in app
"trigger the conservatives" to Force them tO attaCk tHe aCtIons Of prIvate
companies, BUt thIs is hardly a good argumenT.

~~~
YouARegReat
> "TRiGger tHe conseRVaTIVes" To FoRce ThEM tO attaCk tHe actioNs of privatE
> coMpAnies

ConservATiVes will comE to Understand thAt bIg capiTaL is NOt a coNseRvatiVe.

~~~
wistY
i'm not pErsonally A cONservaTIve, but I'M PReTty sUre conservatives aRE nOT
all hardcore liBertarIaNS oR OBjeCtiVists. Some oF tHe intELlectuaL BrAIN-
TruST of conservatiVe thought is LIbeRtariaN oR obJEctiviSt, but A lOT of The
broader cOnseRvative moVement IS not.

------
CM30
I'VE said it Before, And i'll Say iT AgAiN; onLiNE plATfOrmS NeeDed to be
tReAtEd likE theIR OFFlinE eqUivaLents. why can an ISP noT ceNsor TRafFic buT
a web Host CaN? Why cAn the uTilitY cOmpany or a credit Card Processor Not
'ShUt dOwN' custOMers thEy dIsaGree witH while tHE liKeS OF clOudflare or
PayPal or stRIPe Can?

There'S no logIC bEhINd this. No, YoU caN't juST Say 'ofFlinE StUff has a
mOnopolY', BeCaUse it doEsN't. It miGhT in SomE partS Of thE US (wheRe choice
In ISPS Is limited), but it CErtainly doesn'T In MUCh OF EurOpe, Other parts
oF the us or oTher COuNtrIEs aroUnd thE wORlD. you've got multiple choIcEs for
bAnks aNd building socIeties, multIPLE choices For eLEcTRic companies anD
multIple choiceS For ISPs, yEt we'rE sane and Don't let thEM DiscrimiNatE by
PolItiCAL vIews at will.

It's TIMe siMiLar stanDarDs were sEt uP foR onLinE sErvices toO. If you maRkEt
YoUrSelF as a pLAtform or NeTwoRk Or sErvicE That shOuld bE morAlLy NEutRal,
then YOu SHOuld Be ObLigaTed To Act thAt waY, JusT like yoUr offline
EquIValeNtS gEnerallY do. There shoulD aLways be a waY tO hoSt a plaTFOrm for
yoUr views, no matter how many pEOple hatE thEm and You iN the proceSs.

GOogle aNd APPle shoUld alsO be loOkEd iNTO in reGARdS to ThEir app storES
Too. they'rE dEfacTo monopOlies on their platfoRMs (uNless you jailbReaK
theM), ANd TheIR sTAndArDS foR WHat's 'acceptable' aRe clearly bRoKEn And
biased tO All HeLl. ApparEntly soMethiNG like GaB isn't alloWed, but dozEnS of
cOPYriGht/trademaRk/whatevEr infringINg ripOFfS are? IT's fIne for ApPs tO
ripoFf consUMerS and tArget kIdS with eXploiTaTive in apP purchases
"trigger the conservatives " to force  them  to  at ta ck t he a ctions of priv a te
c ompanies, but this ishardl ya  goo d  a rgume nt.

~~ ~ 
Y o u Are Gr ea t
>  " t ri ggerthe  conser vatives" t o f or ce them to a t ta ck the act ion s of private 
>compan ie s
C onser vat iveswill c o me tounderstan dt hat bi g  capita l is  not  a conservative.~~ ~ 
wisty
I'm not  perso na l ly a  co nse rvative, b ut  I'mp retty s u re c o nse r vatives are n ot
all hard c ore  liber ta ria n s or o bject iv i sts . Some of t he i ntellectu al bra i n-
trus t  of con servat ive  th ough t  i slib er t ari a noro bje ctivist,  b ut  a lo t of t h e 
bro ade r co nserv ative movemen t i s no t .
----- -
CM3 0
I' ve  said  it be fore,  a nd I'll say itagai n; online  pl at for ms  need e d to b e
t rea ted lik e their off li n e eq uivalents. Why can  a n IS P not ce nsor t r af fi c  but
a w eb  ho st c a n ? Why  can th e utilit y comp a ny  o r a cre di t card  p roc ess or no t 
'sh ut dow n' custo merst hey disagree w i th while thel ik e s  o f  Clo udf lare or
Pay Palo r St ripe ca n?There 's no  l o gi c  behind this. No, y ou  can't  just  say 'offline  stuff has a monopoly ', b e ca u se it doesn't.  It m ight in so m e partsof th e US (wh ere choic e in ISPsislim ite d), b ut  it certainly d oesn 't  in muc h o f Europ e,oth erpar ts 
of the U S or oth er  c ou nt rie s aro u nd the w or ld.  Y ou' ve go t  multi ple c hoic es  f o r
b anks an d  b u i ldin gso ciet ies ,multi plec hoi ces for  electric  co m pani es  a nd
mult iple choicesfo r ISPs, ye twe' re san e and don' t let them discriminate by
poli tic al vi ewsat will.
It 's tim e s i milarstanda rds w er e s e t  up f o r  o nli ne  servicest o o.If yo umark et
your self as a platform ornetwork or se rvi ce t h a tsho u ld bemo r all y neutral,
then y ou shouldbe ob ligated to act  t hat way , justlikey our off line
equi valents g en eral l y  do . There sh ould alw ays be aw ay to ho st apla tformfo r
y our v iews,n o m atter  how m an y peop le ha te  them an d you in the process.
Google  andApp le should  al s o b e lookedinto  in regard s t o t heirapp store s
to o .The y 're d efac t o monopol i es  on t he ir platform s ( unl ess y ouj ailbre ak
t hem), and their s t andards for wh at's ' acc ept a ble'  a re clearly bro ken  a n d 
biasedto  all hell.Apparent ly somet hing l ike Ga b isn't a ll o wed, b ut d oze ns of
cop yri gh t /tradem ar k/ w hateve r in fr inging  ripof f s ar e ?  It's fine for a pps t o ripof f  co nsume rs  and ta r getkids withexploitativ e in a pp p urcha ses
"trigger the_conservatives" to_force them to attack_the actions_of_private
companies, but_this_is hardly a_good argument.

~~~
YouAreGreat
> "trigger_the conservatives" to force_them to attack_the_actions of private
> companies

Conservatives will come to understand that big capital is not a_conservative.

~~~
wisty
I'm_not personally_a_conservative,_but I'm pretty sure conservatives_are not
all hardcore libertarians or_objectivists. Some_of the intellectual brain-
trust of conservative thought is_libertarian_or objectivist, but_a lot of the
broader conservative movement is not.

------
CM30
I've said_it before, and I'll say it_again; online platforms_needed_to_be
treated like their offline_equivalents. Why can an ISP not_censor traffic but
a web host can?_Why can the utility company or a_credit card processor not
'shut down' customers_they disagree with while the_likes of_Cloudflare or
PayPal or Stripe can?

There's_no logic behind_this. No,_you can't just_say 'offline stuff has a
monopoly', because_it doesn't. It_might in some parts of the_US_(where choice
in ISPs_is_limited),_but it_certainly doesn't in_much_of Europe,_other_parts
of the US or other countries_around_the world. You've got multiple choices for
banks_and building societies, multiple_choices_for electric companies and
multiple_choices for ISPs, yet we're_sane and don't let them discriminate_by
political views_at will.

It's_time similar standards were set up for online services too. If_you market
yourself as a platform or_network or service that_should be_morally_neutral,
then you should_be_obligated to_act that way, just like your offline
equivalents_generally do._There should always be a way_to host a platform_for
your_views, no matter how many people_hate them and you in the_process.

Google and Apple should also_be_looked_into in regards to their_app stores
too. They're defacto monopolies on_their platforms (unless_you jailbreak
them), and their standards for what's_'acceptable'_are clearly broken and
biased to all_hell._Apparently something like Gab isn't allowed,_but_dozens_of
copyright/trademark/whatever infringing ripoffs are? It's_fine for apps to
ripoff consumers and_target kids with exploitative in app purchases