I just hope the big platforms (Meta's mostly) either cut off Texas entirely or corral them to a separate Texas-only instance where they can't see others posts and nobody can see them.
If all platforms start catering to the lowest common denominator, everything will be banned.
Should platforms start banning material that's not allowed in, let's say Saudi Arabia? Or Iran? In Finland "disturbing religious peace" (basically blasphemy) is illegal, should that be censored on tech platforms if we say so?
IMO it's just easier to pull out of said country/state/region altogether or if they bring enough business you create a separate sandbox just for them (Like Google.cn used to be).
Just the threat of being cut off from just Youtube, Facebook and Instagram _will_ make Texas politicians back off really fucking fast. There are very very few voters who don't use Alphabet and Meta services daily.
Other commenters have the right of the response here. If every platform has hundreds of nations & many thousands of provinces (states in the US) that can make arbitrary rules, the internet loses the magic of being an online place where human spirit can congregate & connect.
The internet has been at the fore for a while as a deeply Western-democratic free speech agent, a way to let people share & find out, to support many view. The authoritarian impulse to control & dictate, the view of the party, the small.minded, the dictatorial ought have no extra sway or swagger here.
This hearkens back directly to JP Barlow's Declaration of Independence Of Cyberspace. Which speaks to the freedom. From shitty tyrannies of the mind & spaces, large & small. Which is almost certainly among the top 10 things most submitted to HN. https://hn.algolia.com/?q=Declaration+of+independence+of+cyb...
It's a pity this submission is flagged. This is such at the heart of the online experience, and the threats against it.
The alternative is to cater to the lowest common denominator, meaning that the platforms would restrict everyone, regardless of whether or not they live in Texas.
the logical extension of that line of thinking is to divide into 2 nations, red & blue. personally I believe Huge gigantic nations are not very well suited to implement democracy. the problem is this needs to happen for all huge nations (i.e.. china & russia) otherwise you are concentrating too much power.
I believe you’re saying “I would be happier if I didn’t have information about other people’s opinions and lives.” That’s pretty easy to achieve. However, I don’t at all believe that is consistent with the original proposal.
Comments
I just hope the big platforms (Meta's mostly) either cut off Texas entirely or corral them to a separate Texas-only instance where they can't see others posts and nobody can see them.
Why do you hope for this? Please state it explicitly.
If all platforms start catering to the lowest common denominator, everything will be banned.
Should platforms start banning material that's not allowed in, let's say Saudi Arabia? Or Iran? In Finland "disturbing religious peace" (basically blasphemy) is illegal, should that be censored on tech platforms if we say so?
IMO it's just easier to pull out of said country/state/region altogether or if they bring enough business you create a separate sandbox just for them (Like Google.cn used to be).
Just the threat of being cut off from just Youtube, Facebook and Instagram _will_ make Texas politicians back off really fucking fast. There are very very few voters who don't use Alphabet and Meta services daily.
Other commenters have the right of the response here. If every platform has hundreds of nations & many thousands of provinces (states in the US) that can make arbitrary rules, the internet loses the magic of being an online place where human spirit can congregate & connect.
The internet has been at the fore for a while as a deeply Western-democratic free speech agent, a way to let people share & find out, to support many view. The authoritarian impulse to control & dictate, the view of the party, the small.minded, the dictatorial ought have no extra sway or swagger here.
This hearkens back directly to JP Barlow's Declaration of Independence Of Cyberspace. Which speaks to the freedom. From shitty tyrannies of the mind & spaces, large & small. Which is almost certainly among the top 10 things most submitted to HN. https://hn.algolia.com/?q=Declaration+of+independence+of+cyb...
It's a pity this submission is flagged. This is such at the heart of the online experience, and the threats against it.
The alternative is to cater to the lowest common denominator, meaning that the platforms would restrict everyone, regardless of whether or not they live in Texas.
Just like textbooks!
Both sides of the divide would be happier
the logical extension of that line of thinking is to divide into 2 nations, red & blue. personally I believe Huge gigantic nations are not very well suited to implement democracy. the problem is this needs to happen for all huge nations (i.e.. china & russia) otherwise you are concentrating too much power.
We have 50 states. Let them be different.
I believe you’re saying “I would be happier if I didn’t have information about other people’s opinions and lives.” That’s pretty easy to achieve. However, I don’t at all believe that is consistent with the original proposal.