If global IT spend is 4.5T, and AWS revenues is around 50B (don’t quote me I’m too lazy to look it up) and AWS has the largest market share of cloud. That implies that most companies aren’t using cloud and there is no monopoly. Anyone can put a website up, find a colo center to serve traffic somewhere and reach anyone. No one is just randomly blocking websites in the US and Android and now iOS support web push notifications on mobile
RedState is a conservative website that allows comments. I was banned because I didn’t toe the line. Do you think they would have been okay with the Biden administration saying I must be allowed to comment.
Well, when I was in kindergarten, I very much knew my teacher had a spouse, had twins, and she was pregnant at the time.
Would it have been inappropriate if she said her and her husband was having a baby? In todays society would it have been in appropriate if she said her and her wife? How do you think these same conservatives would have felt if little Johnny came home and mentioned to their parents that their teacher spoke about her wife?
Do I also deserve “protection” when RedState has banned me twice for not carrying the party line? Do you think Truth Social would welcome my opinions with open arms?
> generally has to serve the interests of its constituents, ie the fuckup mayor or do nothing member of the county commissioners board will eventually be called out, shamed in public, and lose reelection.
You mean the same local government where I grew up that within my still living parents lifetime enforced Jim Crow laws?
Or do you mean the local government where I live now that specifically said that “religious institutions” can be put up in residential areas but are twisting in all sorts of contortions trying to keep a Hindu temple out?
Or could it be the same state governments that are banning abortion left and right even though it goes against the wishes of their constituents?
Maybe it’s the same local government that condones police stopping minorities far more than non minorities because they “look suspicious”?
On the other hand the residence of Orange County Florida are definitely not in favor of Desantis forcing them (soon us) to take over control of Disney.
I know this not just because of what I heard on the news. Orange County will soon be our legal residence and where we spend the winter (the rest of the time traveling). I thought if nothing else, you could count on conservatives to be good for business and lower taxes. The stunt that the Florida governor did is good for nothing but his own ego.
The only mention of it not raising taxes for residence came from DeSantis without anything to back it up.
This isn’t something I’m just hearing about from the national news. I bought a second home/investment property in Orange County that will become my legal residence once my wife and I start doing the digital nomad thing later this year.
People locally do not want this. No Republican or Democratic governor has ever complained about Disney’s special tax district until DeSantis brought it up specifically because Disney spoke up. DeSantis is not interested in “protecting free speech”.
Does this sound like anything but retribution:
“You’re a corporation based in Burbank, California, and you’re going to martial your economic might to attack the parents of my state? We view that as a provocation, and we’re going to fight back against that,” DeSantis said during an event at a Hialeah Gardens charter school.
DI&E training is not about “hiring based on race”. It’s about just the opposite. Treating people differently based on race because we all have implicit biases. Some of us are just intelligent enough to recognize it in ourselves and not allow it to affect our actions.
But the law is not about hiring. The law is about what companies are allowed to include in their training and the government was trying to decide what could and could not be said by private corporations.
The government wanted to in fact control speech - not hiring decisions.
Are you okay with the government controlling what private companies can say during their training?
So you’re in favor of the government controlling political speech that you don’t agree with? Nowhere in the DI&E training I’ve taken at the country’s second largest employer do they claim one group is inherently prejudice. We are all inherently prejudice based on our own lived experiences.
White people in metro areas are often prejudiced against “rural America”. Lighter skinned Black or often prejudiced against darker skin Black people. There have been reports that Indians are still practicing the caste system in hiring. Second and third generation Americans of the same race talk about people from their own country who are “fresh off the boat”.
But either way, seeing that you don’t see a problem with the government controlling speech that you disagree with is the very reason that the government shouldn’t have that power.
Can you point to any article where the local government is salivating over wanting to take over Disney? How does it possibly help the surrounding city?
There is a huge movement in the metro Atlanta area to either break off from the larger city or to incorporate county areas so they can have more local control. There is no movement to take over larger responsibilities by the taxpayers.
So the government should pass laws that tell private companies what they can’t talk about. But the government should also pass laws that force companies to publish every other opinion? Isn’t that the government now controlling free speech?
Isn’t the government in fact pushing a narrative when they don’t allow companies to focus on sexual an racial harassment? Should companies not train interviewers that you shouldn’t discriminate based on someone’s accent or where they went to school?
If I set up a website where I want to talk about Christianity should I not be allowed to ban discussions about Islam or vice versa?
And there are very much “labels” when I as Black person was the dev lead for local company in the South where any time consultants and vendors came in they automatically assumed one of my reports - a white guy - was the manager.
It even happened at a business lunch with my team. The waitress asked the table in general was this one check or separate. I said one check, started pulling out my wallet and she still handed the check to the guy who I assume looked like a manager even though I was the only one reaching for a credit card.
My family is “labeled” all of the time when we “look like we don’t belong” somewhere in our city that was as recently as the mid 80s a “sundown town” and we are still very much the minority (less than 4%).
My 6 foot 5 step son who has lived in the burbs all of his life is very much “labeled” when he walks into a store.
So in fact, you do want the same government to “keep social media in check” that in another story that was on the front page was the government encouraging social media to censor speech? Would you want that same government to force HN to allow political topics? Would it apply to religious organizations that set up a social media platform?
You said yourself it would be a “negative outcome”.
The state pushing this is the same state that tried to force companies not to speak about diversity. They literally named a law “Stop Woke”.
Conservatives love “the free market” and “small government” when it suits them. These are the same politicians who are opposed to net neutrality. It’s much easier to create an alternative social media platform than create an alternative ISP.
It’s the type of thing that I have thought about. But wouldn’t have done before AI.