Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!

[Kent C]

PELOSI'S NEW HOUSE RULES ARE GENDER-NEUTRAL

It read: "Strike 'father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, step sister, half brother, half sister, grandson, or granddaughter' and insert 'parent, child, sibling, parent’s sibling, first cousin, sibling’s child, spouse, parent in-law, child-in-law, sibling-in-law, stepparent, stepchild, stepsibling, half-sibling, or grandchild.'’’

That violates the 1st Amendment - IN CONGRESS!

 

[Bronze]

As currently constructed, censorship by private corporations is legal. Anti-trust litigation could alter that. However, what would you think about considering technology's selective banning, skewed search results and the like to be direct "in kind' campaign contributions and thus subject to campaign finance laws? But there then is the bete noir of the democrat party, the infamous Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). Perhaps the opinion should be revisited and expanded, rather than over-ruled, to allow for contributions of any kind either direct or indirect by corporations to a party or candidate.

As is generally true, our intellectual consistency is tied to our personal policy preferences and depends upon whose ox is gored.

There are wealthy people all over the place and there are intelligent IT people all over the place. Combine the two and put a hurtin' on the big tech elites. It wont happen overnight and it wont be easy but in time they WILL be marginalized (where they belong).

 

[UncLeJunkLe]

There are wealthy people all over the place and there are intelligent IT people all over the place. Combine the two and put a hurtin' on the big tech elites. It wont happen overnight and it wont be easy but in time they WILL be marginalized (where they belong).

Unfortunately that isn't true. It has already been proven with various alt-tech sites since about 2018 that, once you get so popular, there are uber wealthier people who will get your site shut down by various means or made insignificant/hard to find. I cannot name these uber wealthy elite because it would get me banned from ECF.

There is a way around this to some degree, which is to run your site on own servers (like one o fthe biggest alt tech sites does now does) instead of using big tech server farms like Amazon AWS, but that makes the cost to entry YOOOOOOOOOOOOOJ and not realistic for a new site.

However, even with your own servers, you're always beholden to Big Telecom anyway, so you'll be shut down eventually (that remains to be seen but I am sadly confident this is true because Big [insert industries here] are all controlled by these same uber wealthy elites). We'll see.

 

[UncLeJunkLe]

PELOSI'S NEW HOUSE RULES ARE GENDER-NEUTRAL

It read: "Strike 'father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, step sister, half brother, half sister, grandson, or granddaughter' and insert 'parent, child, sibling, parent’s sibling, first cousin, sibling’s child, spouse, parent in-law, child-in-law, sibling-in-law, stepparent, stepchild, stepsibling, half-sibling, or grandchild.'’’

That violates the 1st Amendment - IN CONGRESS!

All the words containing cousin, child, parent & sibling aren't actually gender specific so there must be another agenda here or she's completely off her rocker...or both.

 

[Territoo]

All the words containing cousin, child, parent & sibling aren't actually gender specific so there must be another agenda here or she's completely off her rocker...or both.

We know she's off her rocker. In fact she's bat crazy.

 

[Rossum]

There is a way around this to some degree, which is to run your site on own servers (like one o fthe biggest alt tech sites does now does) instead of using big tech server farms like Amazon AWS

You mean there's a place where you can gab to your heart's content without being worried about censorship?

 

[Bronze]

Unfortunately that isn't true. It has already been proven with various alt-tech sites since about 2018 that, once you get so popular, there are uber wealthier people who will get your site shut down by various means or made insignificant/hard to find. I cannot name these uber wealthy elite because it would get me banned from ECF.

There is a way around this to some degree, which is to run your site on own servers (like one o fthe biggest alt tech sites does now does) instead of using big tech server farms like Amazon AWS, but that makes the cost to entry YOOOOOOOOOOOOOJ and not realistic for a new site.

However, even with your own servers, you're always beholden to Big Telecom anyway, so you'll be shut down eventually (that remains to be seen but I am sadly confident this is true because Big [insert industries here] are all controlled by these same uber wealthy elites). We'll see.

If there's a will there's a way. As it stands now, you need a platform, a server farm, and an app store. Any one of them can thwart you. Fine. The hill is tall. Get started. In the meanwhile you fight for enacting/enforcing anti-trust laws.

 

[Rossum]

If there's a will there's a way. As it stands now, you need a platform, a server farm, and an app store.

Why do you need an app store? Does the device you're using not have a browser?

 

[Bronze]

Why do you need an app store? Does the device you're using not have a browser?

You don't need an app store. You're right. It would help for exposure but is not mandatory.

 

[ShowMeTwice]

I respectfully disagree, the urge and accordingly right to free expression is an innate right of every human being. No one, in my estimation, has the right to gag anyone. I frankly don't care what rule or law you may be willing or capable of writing, it's meaningless to me. Your speech may only be justifiably restricted when its intent is to cause harm or curtail the equivalent right of others and becomes that in fact and not merely in perception.

My rights end where your's begin. That to me would be the equitable framework of justice in reason and law.

Good luck to all.

You disagree, cool. Take it up with the management here and the private companies who make the rules.

And I don't disagree with you. My post was simply highlighting the way things are today in the context of the post I quoted. Whether we like it or not private companies and forums such as ECF can do exactly what they are doing. They get to decide.

Companies own the platforms that we use to communicate. As it stands today, it is perfectly within their legal right to decide what is and isn't acceptable.

 

[ShowMeTwice]

As it stands now, you need a platform, a server farm, and an app store.

To be completely independent will require owning the physical communications infrastructure. Currently everyone is leasing comms from somebody. That somebody may not like what people are transmitting across their lines and terminate them. To be successful will likely require an alt ISP.

 

[Rossum]

To be completely independent will require owning the physical communications infrastructure. Currently everyone is leasing comms from somebody. That somebody may not like what people are transmitting across their lines and terminate them.

Can the phone company cut you off because they don't like what you say on your line?

 

[Kent C]

You disagree, cool. Take it up with the management here and the private companies who make the rules.

And I don't disagree with you. My post was simply highlighting the way things are today in the context of the post I quoted. Whether we like it or not private companies and forums such as ECF can do exactly what they are doing. They get to decide.

Companies own the platforms that we use to communicate. As it stands today, it is perfectly within their legal right to decide what is and isn't acceptable.

You're right, it's more of an 'anti-trust/RICO' issue than 1st amendment issue.

 

[UncLeJunkLe]

You mean there's a place where you can gab to your heart's content without being worried about censorship?

Not entirely, because even blab has been deleting accounts since they came back online after they went live with their own servers.

 

[englishmick]

There are wealthy people all over the place and there are intelligent IT people all over the place. Combine the two and put a hurtin' on the big tech elites. It wont happen overnight and it wont be easy but in time they WILL be marginalized (where they belong).

They are big and powerful for sure. That doesn't just happen with tech companies though, it happens with every industry today. They control the politicians and arrange the tax laws and regs to make it harder for competition to emerge. The only difference with social media is the immediate way it impacts us. With other industries the impact is higher prices and less choice, which happens in a less obvious way most of the time.

I don't see how competition and more platforms would change anything for the better. Or banning them from censoring posts. I don't do any social media apart from ECF because of the rampant hostility and craziness.

The thing the politicians are pushing now to remove their protection from lawsuits over material they put on their platforms would have the opposite effect. It would force them to censor anything remotely controversial to protect themselves from lawsuits. Maybe that's good, but not if you're concerned about censorship.

I don't see a simple answer. Think you're right it won't be easy or happen quickly. Our society never had to deal with social media until recently.

 

[UncLeJunkLe]

If there's a will there's a way. As it stands now, you need a platform, a server farm, and an app store. Any one of them can thwart you. Fine. The hill is tall. Get started. In the meanwhile you fight for enacting/enforcing anti-trust laws.

You need a telecom company to get those servers online. Therefore you also need to own a telecom network/company and, if I understand how that works, it's never gonna happen. That's the ultimate problem.

It may happen one day, but it's far off from today, decades. There will be an alternate internet someday.

 

[UncLeJunkLe]

Can the phone company cut you off because they don't like what you say on your line?

Well of course they can. If the right "group" of elites deem information being passed over the telecom lines is "not right", I'm sure Big Telecom would gladly pull your plug if given an "incentive" to do so. They have never had to take it that far yet because Amazon AWS and other server farms that a site might use are glad to pull their plug, so going upstream to the telecoms has not been needed.

But as far as I know, cloudfront (content server) has yet to capitulate, which is good. But it's only a matter of time that they do and it's only a matter of time that telecoms are used to take server-independent sites offline. Stifling a site at the telecom level is the ultimate weapon.

 

[Kent C]

They are big and powerful for sure. That doesn't just happen with tech companies though, it happens with every industry today. They control the politicians and arrange the tax laws and regs to make it harder for competition to emerge.

Thanks for bringing it back on-topic :- )

 

[Bronze]

There are laws that prevent selective censorship. Some companies, as we have learned, are exempt. For now.

 

[englishmick]

Thanks for bringing it back on-topic :- )

Yeah, we were the emerging competition for a while and we got dealt with good.