> You want to take that away from me while pretending to do it for the greater good, when in reality it’s just a selfish desire to impose your will on others.
Let's call a spade, a spade. Your position appears to be "I don't want to choose, and I don't want anyone else to be able to choose either".
That is certainly not the paragon of virtue. Letting people choose -- which doesn't affect you at all - is.
And what do you do when your webhost becomes your moderator and deplatforms your site, on the exact same day?
We can take this all the way to fabricating wires to build computers to make our own servers; at some point we have to discuss the actual issue: where to private and public rights intersect and what is the role of government in resolving the conflict.
> But the thought of a government body deciding when a company may and may not enforce its rules is chilling.
In general I agree with you; I only consider this kind of thinking valid at Twitter/FB/Google/AWS scale - where one decision affects populations the size of entire nations (or larger). It's a problem less than a dozen companies would ever face and any reasonable law would need to make that abundantly clear. I wouldn't favor opening that door for smaller companies.
In the short term, sure it would. If you tear up one field in the middle of planting and plant another, it'll hurt short term; 10 years later it'll be a funny story.
Markets love a vacuum and it would be an opportunity for local players to dive in.
> The slippery slope argument is generally regarded as a logical fallacy because the argument can be applied to anything.
Can you expand on this? I've seen the claim several times, but given the fact that (in general, not referring to covid) it is possible to point to historical examples of how things progress from A->B->C, and then you can identify a sequence of A->B currently, it becomes almost silly not to conclude the goal is C. So why is demonstrating history repeating itself a fallacy?
Granted I've placed a number of conditions there. Maybe that's what you mean. I'm just curious what the general argument is.
> What interest would the U.S. have in requiring Flu or HIV tests for travel?
Humans unfortunately have a bias for "doing something" rather than nothing, even if the two actions are equivalent in consequence (which favors doing nothing - less energy).
Scream loud enough and we'll create problems where there weren't any. I mean that's basically what network news does all day every day. Then we'll respond to those problems, and create more problems. Etc. "It worked for covid, why aren't we doing it for the flu?" Even if the argument isn't valid, it sounds good, and politicians like things that sound good even if they don't do anything, creating problems and great expense for people for little to no actual gain.
I literally started asking around on the web for exactly this today.
Seriously taking a look, this looks promising. We built an app on AppSync and Cognito and I want to get off AWS so I'm looking for alternatives, and this... fits the bill.
Incognito won't help unfortunately. I've tried this on a few occasions and it still pollutes my suggestions. I've noticed that using Brave seems to blunt it -- I have to watch alot more to notice the pollution.
Can't say more than that, I stopped experimenting and basically stopped using Youtube except for the same music I listen to over and over now. Nothing new.
I am tentatively willing to accept that these are simply applications of free speech and section 230, provided that the EFF prompt governments to write legal frameworks for what these platforms can and cannot do.
It is not acceptable to have companies this large, and this influential, 100% unaccountable to democracy.
But I firmly believe in the principle of free speech and not stifling discourse.
And no, not just over Parler. But maybe over Twitter bannings. And Facebook bannings. And Parler. And deplatforming. Eventually people will build their own internet you can't control, and continue to talk. How will you feel about that? Let's say for sake of argument that that occurs, that a whole segment of society builds their own hardware infrastructure that the tech giants do not control and cannot shut down. What would you want to happen?