A company completely controlling the public square and preventing free speech is not relevant to a few companies doing the same with the internet version of the public square?
Which company controls the "public square", exactly?
The "public square" is your ability to physically appear in public, among your peers in the community, face to face, and have a human connection with them. You do so using whatever medium is appropriate. It could be talking to people over beers at the pub. You could read a poem to a group at a library. You could play music and sing songs in a public park. You could stand on a soap box in the marketplace and shout scripture at passers by.
All of those things are still viable. You should consider them, and the rich history that accompanies them. Their cultural relevance and impact. Why they are effective, and by what mechanism?
Now look a this thing you're describing. This new "public square" as you claim, that is actually a service that a company provides as per a license agreement. How does it stack up to the actual "public square"? Is it really the same thing? Is it better? Worse? How so?
Are you a moron or are you just here to troll?
Are you able to bolster your argument without ad hominem attacks?
These services you confuse with tangible mediums of human interaction are in actuality deeply flawed attempts to reproduce the authentic mediums. It should be no surprise to anyone that the results of trading one for the other has been so decisively destructive to our relationships in the near field and societal cohesion at large.
Right now, Google/Twitter/Facebook and could be argued Amazon as a backend provider has immense power over the ability for platforms to even exist.
It is true. They are powerful.
What is the source of their power? Answer: large user bases.
How do we limit their power? Regulation whack-a-mole? The answer is the inverse of the previous one: take away the large user base.
How do we take away the large user base? Educated consumers who no longer tolerate abusive relationships with their service providers.
Nothing ad hominem about it, you really are a moron, you have provided not a single argument here.
This is astonishing. You literally call me a moron, which is the very definition of attacking the person, instead of the argument. And then claim that this comment chain, namely my side of it, fails to make a claim.
Not sure how useful it will be, but here is my argument, as precisely as I can provide it to you:
You have not provided an argument, at all. Where is it? A Supreme Court Justice just provided a clear concise view on the danger big techs power poses, how they control speech and possible ways to fix it.
You've done nothing, no argument, just paragraph after paragraph of ranting and raving, and still no argument.
So yes; you're a moron. You've provided no argument to attack here, so no ad hominem.
Which company controls the "public square", exactly?
The "public square" is your ability to physically appear in public, among your peers in the community, face to face, and have a human connection with them. You do so using whatever medium is appropriate. It could be talking to people over beers at the pub. You could read a poem to a group at a library. You could play music and sing songs in a public park. You could stand on a soap box in the marketplace and shout scripture at passers by.
All of those things are still viable. You should consider them, and the rich history that accompanies them. Their cultural relevance and impact. Why they are effective, and by what mechanism?
Now look a this thing you're describing. This new "public square" as you claim, that is actually a service that a company provides as per a license agreement. How does it stack up to the actual "public square"? Is it really the same thing? Is it better? Worse? How so?
Are you able to bolster your argument without ad hominem attacks?
These services you confuse with tangible mediums of human interaction are in actuality deeply flawed attempts to reproduce the authentic mediums. It should be no surprise to anyone that the results of trading one for the other has been so decisively destructive to our relationships in the near field and societal cohesion at large.
Right now, Google/Twitter/Facebook and could be argued Amazon as a backend provider has immense power over the ability for platforms to even exist.
Nothing ad hominem about it, you really are a moron, you have provided not a single argument here.
It is true. They are powerful.
What is the source of their power? Answer: large user bases.
How do we limit their power? Regulation whack-a-mole? The answer is the inverse of the previous one: take away the large user base.
How do we take away the large user base? Educated consumers who no longer tolerate abusive relationships with their service providers.
This is astonishing. You literally call me a moron, which is the very definition of attacking the person, instead of the argument. And then claim that this comment chain, namely my side of it, fails to make a claim.
Not sure how useful it will be, but here is my argument, as precisely as I can provide it to you:
https://patriots.win/p/12i48avCVE/x/c/4DzdtEccniQ
https://patriots.win/p/12i48avCVE/x/c/4DzdtEhBD4l
https://patriots.win/p/12i48avCVE/x/c/4DzdtEjPWbq
https://patriots.win/p/12i48avCVE/x/c/4DzdtEiImNk
https://patriots.win/p/12i48avCVE/x/c/4DzdtEhA6sc
https://patriots.win/p/12i48avCVE/x/c/4DzdtEiIEcL
Specifically at you:
https://patriots.win/p/12i48avCVE/x/c/4DzdtEiHgJv
https://patriots.win/p/12i48avCVE/x/c/4DzdtEjQ56k
https://patriots.win/p/12i48avCVE/x/c/4DzdtEjRRon
https://patriots.win/p/12i48avCVE/x/c/4DzdtEkYTYt
Hope that helps. Please attempt to reply in good faith, and not troll.
You have not provided an argument, at all. Where is it? A Supreme Court Justice just provided a clear concise view on the danger big techs power poses, how they control speech and possible ways to fix it.
You've done nothing, no argument, just paragraph after paragraph of ranting and raving, and still no argument.
So yes; you're a moron. You've provided no argument to attack here, so no ad hominem.
Run along back to /r/politics.