❝❝No, they are not monopolies.

When I sit down at a computer, I don't have to go through Facebook to check the weather or see what is happening at this site. If I wanted to message someone on my iPod or iPad, I don't have to use Twitter.

With AT&T, if you were in an area covered you had no choice. It was your regional Bell company and AT&T or nothing. The breakup fixed that, you could choose your phone company. And today, if I am not in range of the right cell tower, my phone still works as long as I am in range of a cell tower.

Facebook, Twitter, Google, Apple, all got big by offering something the competition did not have. No one was forced. Competition is the only way to reduce their hold. And the competition, like all competition, has to offer something more than "just as good as."

For a while, iOS and macOSX had software hooks so that Facebook and Twitter had easier access. That's no longer necessarily true, some of Apple's customers didn't want their data shared by companies that weren't trustworthy.

Government intervention is the last thing we need. There are already politicos who complain about "fake news" that isn't fake, it's just not what the politicos want you to think about. From the news in the last couple of days, it seems Twitter is going after conservative and libertarian users. Do we really want a world where government decides what may and may not be said?

Oh, one other thing. Monopolies rely on government support and intervention. Start regulating and you just planted a monopoly.

---

I agree it's a mess.

To get a site, you have to register a domain name. Then you have to get server space. If you use a company like Wordpress, you agree to carry their ads on your site in exchange for a reduced rate or free use on their server space. If you go on your own, you find a web host (like MacHighway) and you have more control over the site and advertising.

Think of it like a storefront that you have to rent. Depending on the terms of the lease, that is how much service your "landlord" provides and how much you provide to your visitors.

If Twitter provides the ability to block people you don't like, I agree that it should be available to ALL users. But the platform is not public property. The "landlord" can block out who they want when they want. But they shouldn't be shielded from the consequences of their actions. They are liable if they provide different services and benefits to their users. If it's a "free" service, then all "free" users should have the same benefits as all other "free" users. The "landlord" can ban conservatives, but if they allow conservatives (or one specific high profile conservative), then that person should have the same rights and benefits.

ETA: The real question is if the platform should ban offensive content and how that should be defined.❞❞

Tags: virtue signaling ∙ Facebook ∙ Twitter ∙ Apple ∙ server space ∙ Google ∙ iOS ∙ domain name ∙ macOSX ∙ competition ∙ government intervention ∙ fake news ∙ politicos ∙ conservative ∙ libertarian ∙ government ∙ Wordpress ∙ MacHighway ∙ lease ∙ offensive

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: tech companies ∙ CIA ∙ propaganda ∙ classified intormation ∙ global warming ∙ James Comey ∙ judge ∙ landlords ∙ tenants ∙ evict ∙ Donald Trump ∙ Steele Dossier ∙ Pledge of Allegiance ∙ strip clubs ∙ Houston ∙ George Soros ∙ social media ∙ populism ∙ First Amendment ∙ Mueller indictment ∙ election ∙ shenanigans ∙ extremist ∙ offensive ∙ FBI ∙ Florida shooter ∙ white nationalists ∙ public schools ∙ competition ∙ Koch brothers ∙ Arizona

Headlines that don't merit their own entry

Tags: violence ∙ Los Angeles ∙ rail project ∙ New York ∙ New Jersey ∙ Baltimore ∙ crime rate ∙ CIA ∙ surveillance ∙ net neutrality ∙ Arkansas ∙ gun range ∙ feminist theory ∙ Canada ∙ penguins ∙ Femen ∙ class distinctions ∙ SWATting ∙ Kansas ∙ Inna Shevchenko ∙ offensive

I want a government that is smaller than absolutely necessary.

I believe that people are perfectly capable of making their own choices and that society is the better if people do exactly that.

I believe that faith and religion can be a tremendous source of individual morality and a dangerous tyranny in society.

There is more but that will do for a start.

---

And there you go, presuming to speak for the Divine in regards to my fate.

I'm sure that makes you feel important. Worthy. Superior.

Do you think you would take offense if I did the same thing to you?

Or do you think your faith supersedes mine?

Just in case you've forgotten:

It always seems to come down to whose belief comes first, who presumes to speak for the Divine, and what happens when someone disagrees.

---

I think you're the first one here who asked me what I believe. You deserve a good answer. But this really isn't about me, it's about us finding common ground.

So to start with:

I call myself pagan because I don't have a better term. I'm polytheistic and pantheistic. On alternate Thursdays and every third Tuesday I might admit to being panetheistic with an animism bent as well. On the 13th of the month, I'll tell you (truthfully) that the label isn't really all that important, only the manifestation.

====================
My path involves recognizing and celebrating the natural cycles in ourselves, in the world around us, and in the worlds we touch in our dreams. I seek the Divine in human, Nature, and machine. I want to find the synthesis between mankind and ideas, between faith and technology, between what was and what will be.

I believe that all things have a Divine nature. Life is the universe's attempt to understand itself. I know that the totality of the universe is too vast for me to comprehend. So there are godmasks that I turn to for understanding, guidance, and strength when mine is not enough. I know that these godmasks are only representations and gateways to Divinity, not Divinity themselves.

---

I'll let you in on a secret.

I try to treat people online as they have treated me. I'm nice until someone shows they don't deserve it.

For life in general, I have three rules.

THE GOLDEN RULE - Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

THE SILVER RULE - Do for yourself at least as much as you do for others.

THE IRON RULE - Don't do for others what they can do for themselves.

---

I am totally for live and let live. It's the core of my most deeply held beliefs.

I really don't care about someone else's beliefs or politics unless they want to impose those on everyone else.

Going back to my original post on this thread, if the choice is between the absolute on the left side or the absolute on the right, I am going to pick freedom despite both.

I respectfully disagree with you on that.

---

There is a technopagan addendum to that.

"Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology."

Personally I don't think the two are as far removed as it would seem.

Tags: Crux Files ∙ government ∙ smaller than absolutely necessary ∙ choice & consequence ∙ faith ∙ religion ∙ Divine ∙ fate ∙ offensive ∙ believe ∙ Golden Rule ∙ Silver Rule ∙ Iron Rule ∙ live & let live

❝❝I won't play your shame game. I won't abase myself before your demands. I didn't do anything wrong. Maybe I offended you, but I didn't harm you.❞❞
     — NeoWayland

Tags: maxims ∙ shame game ∙ offensive ∙ harm

“Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.”

““A law found to discriminate based on viewpoint is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” which is “presumptively unconstitutional.” … A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.””
     — Justice Anthony Kennedy

Tags: Supreme Court ∙ clipping ∙ First Amendment ∙ offensive ∙ Anthony Kennedy

The Bad Manners of the Campus Left

❝❝What the hooligans last Thursday at my lecture in Colorado were objecting to was a very different kind of invasion—a peaceful, voluntary offering of ideas they were unaware of, didn’t want to hear, and thought it was their right to prevent others from hearing. Their intent was to intimidate, to harass, to silence, to dominate. This is not conduct that a citadel of education should tolerate for an instant.

Interesting, isn’t it, that what some go to college for, others find “offensive.” As I watched the incident occur, I thought to myself, “I’m standing in a taxpayer-funded institution of supposedly ‘higher’ education, not a Khmer Rouge re-education camp, for crying out loud!”❞❞
     — Lawrence W. Reed

Tags: Lawrence W. Reed ∙ college ∙ offensive ∙ Colorado ∙ clipping

“In defense of the offensive“ & “A microcosm of the maddening mix of Progressive hate, ignorance, and nonsense at an American college”

Tags: Jacob Hill ∙ UC Berkeley ∙ anti-Semitism ∙ Charles Murray ∙ speech wars ∙ Bookworm ∙ Bill Maher ∙ Goerge Eliot ∙ offensive ∙ clipping