75
Comments (108)
sorted by:
62
lgbtqwtfbbq 62 points ago +63 / -1

These sort of libertarians drive me nuts. They decry what they perceive as an "infringement of liberty" but then fail to pay anything but lip service to the government-granted immunity from liability these companies are getting despite acting as publishers. Which they wouldn't get in AnCapistan.

Get rid of that and the problem fixes itself the first time a tech CEO serves life in prison for publishing and distributing child pornography.

23
Ricwulf 23 points ago +23 / -0

I'd almost agree with (re:tolerate) them if these companies weren't taking hundreds of thousands in taxpayer money. I respect freedom of association, but at some point it needs to end.

Furthermore, there's already precedent for private businesses being required to uphold the First Amendment.

8
when_we_win_remember 8 points ago +8 / -0

Like almost everyone commenting on this, if they aren't missing the point intentionally (controlled opposition), they are pretty dense. The regulatory tools to deal with FB et al exist and are pro-liberty. Supporting free markets means opposing monopolies. Supporting free markets means corps are responsible for the shit they put on the Internet. Break up these monopolies now (in addition to what you said). If any regulators had any balls it would be done already. Congress can order regulators to act, if necessary.

3
NoGardE 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yeah, Texas LP is a particularly bad state affiliate. They're populated with the old guard of the party, who basically just want to use it as a social club to complain about weed laws together. Luckily, Mises Caucus is making good progress taking the party over. Texas will unfortunately be one of the last strongholds of the "pragmatists" to fall.

43
BulbasaurusThe7th 43 points ago +45 / -2

Why does Libertarianism so often end with no standards?

39
AntonioOfVenice 39 points ago +41 / -2

Weed.

26
NihilistCaregiver 26 points ago +27 / -1

dude weed lmao

35
WhitePhoenix [S] 35 points ago +35 / -0

A Certain Classical Liberal reminded us that you cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good, in a video called Ideological Hegemony.

Back then, it was to try to reason with people who wanted GG to be more "anti SJW" than pro ethics during the GG era, and that ostracization of those who just wanted to be "pro ethics" is how you kill the movement. He was partially right, but he also realized that not addressing the SJW issue was ultimately going to be detrimental to everyone and that the key is to win over the "pro ethics" crowd to realize there is a bigger issue than just vidya ethics.

Now I think that can still be applied to "Lolbertarians" who have adopted the neverTrumper "muh freedoms" view.

They don't realize that by continuing to stick to their utopian libertarian stance, they are literally handing the weapon over to the enemy to silence them with.

You have to realize at some point that strict adherence to your utopian principles may actually be detrimental to the ultimate goal you're going for. If you remember the interview Ben Shapiro had with Tucker Carlson, Shapiro had the tradcon ultra-capitalist position. That the best business out there will rise to the top, and that there will be winners and losers in a situation and those who cannot adapt are simply in a "too bad, so sad" position.

Tucker, on the other hand, saw the right-populist position, he understands that the adoption of pure capitalism actually placed us in a quandry where we're going to "out-capitalism" some of our population, especially the current Gen X population that are already too old to learn new skills. Some will adopt, but others are essentially going to be "phased out" of the economy and be too old to be able to do anything while staying in the workforce.

That same pure capitalism has also allowed the proliferation of plagues like OnlyFans and other hedonistic degeneracy. From a lolbertarian standpoint, this should be allowed - none of it is directly hurting me, but we know this shit is harmful to society as it deteriorates the already crumbling foundation of relationships and essentially commodifying it. The girls who take advantage of this aren't exactly well adjusted people either.

This is the reason why people like Styx aren't pure libertarians either - he realizes that in order to protect a libertarian state, you NEED to take some nationalist policies that may come in conflict with your ideology but are ones built of absolute pragmatism. Be principled all you like, but at the same time one needs to realize sometimes you need to be realistic than idealistic.

36
lgbtqwtfbbq 36 points ago +36 / -0

The point I have been trying to drive home to one of my libertarian friends is that the heads of these companies:

  • All share the same values as the politicians (which are not your values)
  • All attend the same schools as each other (which are not schools they would let you attend)
  • See it as their sacred duty to shape society into a form that works against your interests
  • Are being encouraged and/or allowed to do this by politicians and a judiciary who would gladly do it themselves but need to launder it through the private sector to grant it legitimacy because it's not being done through legislation.

It isn't "My neighbor Joe wanted to sell some apples from his orchard, but he got shut down because he didn't have a food vendor's license and because his orchard wasn't zoned for commercial farming". It's "These Fortune 500 CEOs want to reshape society and change your way of life so that they can maintain a permeant neo-feudalist oligarchy".

To the extent the NAP has any teeth at all, your way of life is being aggressed against by these companies; and you are under no obligation to stand by and let them do it.

22
AntonioOfVenice 22 points ago +24 / -2

Well put. According to our lolbertarian friends, these megacorps having their boots on our necks is not a violation of the NAP, but us trying to remove it is.

20
lgbtqwtfbbq 20 points ago +22 / -2

That's because this particular brand of lolbertarianism when taken to its logical conclusion results in absolute monarchy. If a megacorp owns all the land in a region and can do whatever it wants with the land, and everyone on its land is obligated to comply with whatever dictates it wants, how is that any different than the old feudal system?

At least Hoppe is honest that he wants states to be absolute monarchies, and has the good sense to want to forcibly remove communists.

21
AntonioOfVenice 21 points ago +21 / -0

In defense of Hoppe, absolute monarchy is a lesser evil than corporate domination. The monarch in question is, at least theoretically, obliged to take care of the res publica, as opposed to serving private interests. If that does not happen, then you get revolts, because people expect some regard for the public interest. Not so with corporations.

9
Gizortnik 9 points ago +9 / -0

If a megacorp owns all the land in a region and can do whatever it wants with the land, and everyone on its land is obligated to comply with whatever dictates it wants, how is that any different than the old feudal system?

Because capitalism and expansive private ownership is what fucking ended feudalism. Corporations are pushing for feudalism, which involved the state building guild systems which were the only legal entities allowed to engage in certain forms of commerce. Feudalism is the heaviest possible form of regulation outside Stalinist Communism.

Why don't corporations just buy up entire cities? Why did the mining towns stop?

Because it's utterly impractical and totally unaffordable without a state protecting them at every level, and subsidizing them to an extreme. Corporate Colonialism and Slavocracy is what they are doing. Colonialism and Slavery are unprofitable because they waste vast resources on shit that doesn't directly contribute to generating a good or service that someone wants. The American South was made under-developed by slavery as an institution. The British Empire was remarkably unprofitable by their own damn records. Colonialism is a shit business practice because it's inefficient.

Why did "Corporate Campuses" return? Because The government (both California and the US federal) subsidized them and convinced entire swathes of the population that private ownership of property was a vast right-wing conspiracy theory. Don't own anything, don't ask to own anything, let the insurance company pay for everything, give your money to the bank, and your pension to the investment firm, and you'll be happy. All while a corporatist legal structure attacks competition, entrapanuership, and sole proprietorship at every possible angle in an economy based on Keynesian Socialist economics and Fabian Socialist politics.

1
APDSmith 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's massively unprofitable for society as a whole and taxpayers in particular, but if you're the megacorp getting all of your costs socialised while you keep all of the profits private it's a pretty sweet gig.

1
Gizortnik 1 point ago +1 / -0

Almost precisely. The corporations themselves are public entities, they do redistribute wealth to their public investors, but they keep the top cuts to themselves.

1
SparkMandrill83 1 point ago +8 / -7

Megacorps dont exist without government intervention. An ancap society would likely stay mostly local, and corps like Disney or Microsoft would have died out decades ago like they naturally would have without all the lobbying they did for regulations that kept them afloat.

8
lgbtqwtfbbq 8 points ago +8 / -0

This is probably true. The problem is that you rarely see these types of libertarians talk about it (though more serious ones like Hoppe do, but you rarely hear about them in mainstream discourse for obvious reasons).

When Boeing was having problems with their 737 MAX, was the Libertarian Party of Texas tweeting out "If the concept of Limited Liability for company executives and investors -- a market-distorting legal fiction created by the government -- were eliminated, these issues would be far less likely to occur because the executives and investors wouldn't want to risk bankruptcy and prison time by putting out an unsafe product"? Or were they blaming the FAA?

7
SparkMandrill83 7 points ago +7 / -0

Well yeah, because most official Libertarian parties in America are controlled opposition, much like the GOP in their own way. Its why I prefer discussing ideas and solutions over strict adherence to ideology or party.

1
Gizortnik 1 point ago +1 / -0

I can't speak for the Libertarian Party of Texas on such a specific issue.

However, the argument isn't unfamiliar to me. The very nature of a Limited Liability Company is a legal structure to protect businesses from prosecution. It exists to privilege these corporations for the benefits of concentrating wealth and power into a few hands which can be taxed and monitored more easily.

Imagine if Boeing were a sole proprietorship. That is a private company. If Boeing built a shit airplane, the company as a fictitious legal construct couldn't be sued, the owner of Boeing could be directly sued. Not only that, he'd actually have to personally sue each of the employees that fucked up. The law would actually create a fixed chain of responsibility, person after person.

Why isn't that done? Because the government first presents corporations, non-profits, and LLC's and legal fictions to protect them from lawsuits, then they tax the shit out of sole proprietorships on top of that, then they offer the largest tax breaks and programs to the largest corporations.

The system is intentionally designed to support these mass, unaccountable, fictitious legal structures. First by promising no legal accountability to corporations, second by adding burdensome legal liabilities to sole proprietorships, third by taxing the shit out of those sole proprietorships which denies any incentive to do it even if you succeed, and fourth by reducing the tax burden on corporations.

Could a government bureaucracy have something to do with this arrangement? Sure, any government oversight agency is going to support the structure I just spelled out. Getting rid of it is one first step, but they can always be replaced by another "temporary" agency later.

19
AntonioOfVenice 19 points ago +19 / -0

It was always the intolerance of the "pro ethics" crowd (the very few who were) which was the problem. They wanted to ban generic "anti-SJW" content, while the anti-SJW folks made no such demands about ethics. If the roles were reversed, and the anti-SJW crowd was demanding bans on ethics content, I would have been on their side. Basically, don't ban stuff.

I agree with the rest of your comment. It's populism or political suicide for the right. "Muh capitalism" and "cut taxes for the 1%" aren't going to cut it. They were never popular, but going against a hard-left that is so radicalized, you're not going to win if you do not stand against it - nor do you deserve to win.

13
WhitePhoenix [S] 13 points ago +13 / -0

Yeah, I know. I knew from the very beginning of GG personally that there was a poisonous ideology fueling the behavior of game journalists. That just forcing game journalists to be "ethical" isn't going to fix the problem. Their unethical behavior is motivated by an ideology that believes in the ends justifying the means.

For the right-populist/actual libertarian side, we try not to adopt that "ends justifies the means" position, we only resort to it when it becomes impractical to maintain our position or if we end up risking being completely eliminated to maintain our position. For us, it's more of a "you left us no choice, I don't want to do this" position, which IMO is a far more defensible position than what the crazies on the far left use which is the "morals be damned, what we do is justified" position.

I stopped worrying about optics once the other side stopped being honest about their ideology.

9
evilmathmagician 9 points ago +9 / -0

Rolling out a pet theory here: positive goals versus negative goals; alternatively, constructivism versus destructivism. "I don't want to fight, I just want to play games in peace" is a positive goal, as it expresses an outcome where something is created or a lost thing is regained. "Your ideas are an evil and I must see you undone" is a negative goal, as it expresses an outcome where something is destroyed or a desired thing is taken.

Argument is simple, that the maintenance of civility demands positive goals, because negative goals are a direct threat to civility. The implication is basically a meme: that "ends justifies the means" may be just only under a positive goal.

I'm inviting feedback because I've hit a wall in development. (I'm still considering whether it could also apply to uncivil scenarios, such as military strategy, but it's looking doubtful so far.)

12
lTentacleMonsterl 12 points ago +12 / -0

you're not going to win if you do not stand against it - nor do you deserve to win.

The purpose of liberal "right" isn't to win, though. It's to pick up stragglers (those left behind with the changes until they are replaced with a newer generation who'll be more liberal) and prevent genuine opposition to the system which they support (liberal capitalism). Their politics will remain largely the same, but as you can see the narrative is changing ("diverse working class," etc).

1
flashersenpai 1 point ago +1 / -0

The US has not adopted pure capitalism.

17
ThrowawyASAP 17 points ago +17 / -0

Because they agree with every leftist belief when it comes to social/morality issues and only disagree with a few fringe econ issues.

7
Ricwulf 7 points ago +8 / -1

Because most of them aren't Libertarian. Most of them hold maybe one or two beliefs that overlap and abandon all others. And right-leaning anarchists aren't much better, in my opinion.

4
deleted 4 points ago +10 / -6
-3
DomitiusOfMassilia [M] -3 points ago +2 / -5

Comment Reported for: Rule 16 (x2)

Comment Removed

6
TallestSkil 6 points ago +8 / -2

No, no rules were violated. That’s not how this works. It’s a statement of fact. No “entire groups” were attacked. Saying that libertarianism was created by jews–as a function of their psychology–is not “attacking” jews as a whole. No more than saying “A company, created exclusively by men, vigorously attacks its competitors in violation of the law” is attacking “all men” as bad.

0
DomitiusOfMassilia [M] 0 points ago +2 / -2

as a function of their psychology

As a function of innate Jewish psychology, and innate Jewish psychology seeks to destroy all objective standards and promote hedonism.

That's both a moral attack on Jews generally and also a line of conspiratorial thinking that Jews invent ideologies in order to destroy objective standards, especially when not all Liberal Philosophy was invented by Jews, and Liberal Philosophy does not exist to promote moral relativism, which is explicitly outside the scope of Liberal Philosophy.

5
TallestSkil 5 points ago +7 / -2

innate Jewish psychology seeks to destroy all objective standards and promote hedonism.

Jews are raised to believe that objectivity doesn’t exist. Moreover, the jewish holy book (which teaches them this) also says not to breed with non-jews. As such, over the last few millennia, a visible genetic distinction between jews and other groups has developed, which perpetuates and promulgates the ideology.

Look at it another way. The rs63376 receptor gene has a series of alleles, and these determine the way in which it behaves. These three allele pairs are labeled AA, GG, and AG. The AA gene has spatial distribution problems, which makes it struggle to receive oxytocin. The GG gene receives oxytocin correctly, so GG people are empathetic. AG people aren’t as receptive as GG people, but they can still function normally in society, whereas AA people have personality disorders. Studies done on the reception of people with these gene variants involve them being shown pictures and judging their responses based on the electrical response in their brains. People with the GG gene show great activity, but those with the AA gene have muted responses. The gene distribution is massively different between the races. Europeans have the GG gene roughly 45% of the time, and AA only 10%. This is one of the genetic sources of white pathological altruism. Asians, on the other hand, see the exact opposite. About 45% AA and only 10% GG. This difference is fundamental and genetic. It is not caused by the environment; it causes the environment–meaning that social behaviors are determined by the types of expression of this gene. White Americans, for example, match the averages of whites in European countries. Asians in the US, however, match Asian countries. Chinese have it particularly bad; Korea and Japan are at least 13% GG on average, whereas China is around 8% GG.

The implications of this are rather stunning. Imagine if half your population was sociopaths, instead of half of your population being highly empathetic people. European countries developed high trust environments because trust and cooperation are necessary for survival. This is also why multiculturalism doesn’t work, and why immigration to white nations by nonwhite persons is never acceptable. People with the AA gene, by the way, have an extreme bias towards their own race. Asians literally have faulty neuron receptors when it comes to empathy. This drives the massive, irreconcilable differences in their cultures and societies from that of Europeans (and others’), and is a fundamental argument for why they should not be allowed to settle in white nations. Europeans, on the other hand, are so empathetic that it bleeds over into consideration of other races, to our own detriment.

I could say the same type of thing about jews as I could about Europeans in another setting. “Why do Europeans do nothing about the mass invasion of foreigners to their lands?” The answer is in our genes, just as it’s in the genes of the jews to behave as they do. So that’s against the rules?

If you’re saying that no one can talk about genetics here, or simply we can’t talk about genetic behavior, say that specifically. You can make that a rule, of course! It just needs to be an overt statement that you’re going to redirect all discussions about things you don’t want discussed. “You guys want to talk about repairing cars, there’s a board for that.” “You guys want to talk about neuropsychology with regard to social convention, there’s a board for that.” Same thing, if you like.

22
AntonioOfVenice 22 points ago +25 / -3

BREAKING: party that has debates about whether child pornography should be legal, thinks it is outrageous to prevent a billion-dollar corporation from controlling public discourse.

18
cartoonericroberts 18 points ago +19 / -1

I am sympathetic to the end goal of libertarianism but anyone who doesn't realize that libertarianism is self-defeating is legally braindead. You will not get a free society if corporations are allowed to silence ideas that offend power. Additionally, but unrelated to this particular post, you will not have a free people capable of self governing if they are addicted to fentanyl porn and sugary drinks. Basically if you want to be governed like a libertarian you have to have a disciplined and well ordered society which you don't get from libertarian policies.

4
Gizortnik 4 points ago +4 / -0

Basically if you want to be governed like a libertarian you have to have a disciplined and well ordered society which you don't get from libertarian policies.

Order is an emergent property of freedom. Order does not have to be imposed on a people, they generate their own order. The less you protect them from the consequences of their actions, the more they will be informed on how to conduct themselves in a beneficial and orderly fashion.

4
evilmathmagician 4 points ago +4 / -0

Everything you said seems correct. However:

you have to have a disciplined and well ordered society which you don't get from libertarian policies

This is a feature, not a bug. If you got it from policy, you would inherently break libertarianism's disfavor of governmental manipulation. You must instead get it from other sources, like culture, upbringing, philosophy, intelligence, etc.

I support the flavor that permits entire civilizations to try and fail this process, which will likely destroy them completely. But I reject large scale civilizations, so it wouldn't be so bad for a few towns to fail.

The logistic reality is basically impossible, though. It'd be insane to attempt anything like this without enormous preparation or some desperate cataclysm. Or something outlandish like Bioshock's Rapture.

4
UsurperJoe 4 points ago +4 / -0

There has to be some rules and leadership.

It's fantasy to think that the majority of people can live disciplined lives on their own.

1
flashersenpai 1 point ago +1 / -0

Who says they have to lead such lives? Or that do do today?

1
UsurperJoe 1 point ago +1 / -0

The libertarian concept

3
SparkMandrill83 3 points ago +4 / -1

you have to have a disciplined and well ordered society which you don't get from libertarian policies.

So government is the only way to keep people disciplined? Culture and upbringing have nothing to do with it? With views like that, you'd fit right in with our SJW friends.

4
cartoonericroberts 4 points ago +5 / -1

You advocating for a theoretical form of government that doesn't exist and wouldn't work in practice would fit in with our commie friends.

4
SparkMandrill83 4 points ago +4 / -0

Im advocating for stronger communities with good morals. Why you think the government needs to be involved for that to exist is what im questioning.

-2
AntonioOfVenice -2 points ago +1 / -3

Probably because government involvement has always been necessary for strong communities with good morals to even exist.

2
flashersenpai 2 points ago +2 / -0

Government is the most immoral thing that ever existed. It wasn't "strong communities" that have kept the US in the middle east for decades.

1
AntonioOfVenice 1 point ago +1 / -0

But that's quite irrelevant for whether or not moral enforcement by the government is necessary for strong, moral communities to exist.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
13
CuomoisaMassMurderer 13 points ago +14 / -1

Clown world, or bizarro world? I'm having trouble keeping up.

Through the whole debate I said they've become like utilities, and that's more or less what Clarence Thomas said here.

I like it :)

10
ernsithe 10 points ago +10 / -0

It's walking a razor's edge and there's some chances to really fuck it up. Giving private companies control over the vast majority of discourse in the country will be a disaster. At the same time there has to be some allowance for curation for forums. I'm not talking about individual users on their own pages/feeds. Those should be protected.

But at the same time, let's say you run a "Pictures of cute puppies" forum. Some asshole won't stop catposting. There's nothing illegal about that. Should you be able to take any action against them? What about when the fetishists show up and start posting pictures of their human "puppies." Still not illegal. Guess you can't ban or restrict that either... If you do, they'll sue.

Common carrier is a good approach but it needs to be applied very specifically to general purpose platforms. You should be able to get kicked out of a sub for not following their rules, but as long as it's legal you should be be able to make your own sub and not get kicked off the site. I'm at a loss for how you produce legislation that's able to consistently split the difference.

2
flashersenpai 2 points ago +2 / -0

Maybe sites that host lots of user forums are outdated anyway. Surely there are methods for end users to host their own thing without putting into a centralized "reddit" bucket.

2
ernsithe 2 points ago +2 / -0

I don't think so. Given the existence of a service like Facebook it's only going to be natural to be able to create interest groups under them. It's not a new thing. Newsgroups on Usenet. Channels on an IRC server.

The thing people always forget is that Section 230 doesn't apply JUST to providers.

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—
(A)any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or
(B)any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).[1]

A full repeal of Section 230 could impact ANY kind of moderation on any platform. My fear is that once you embolden cyber ambulance chasers, the risk of litigation becomes great enough that it kills off user-interaction completely and take us back to the days of static pages. Maybe it goes the other way and it becomes a true wild west where nothing can be removed except by court order. Preferable but the signal to noise is going to be immense.

Imagine a world where a user can spam "SONIC SAYS TRANS RIGHTS" across the first 3 pages of anyone's forum and banning them or removing the posts gets you sued under some misapplication of civil rights statutes. I don't love Twitter and FB but I've got serious concerns about where we are in 5-10 years if Section 230 were to be removed instead of replaced.

9
Steampunk_Moustache 9 points ago +9 / -0

Imagine calling yourself a libertarian and defending a monopolistic megacorp's right to silence you.

8
deleted 8 points ago +12 / -4
9
Gizortnik 9 points ago +9 / -0

Corporations exist at the convenience of the government. That's why you have to legally create them using a government bureaucracy.

Have you ever seen a sole proprietorship have this kind of power and scope?

2
UsurperJoe 2 points ago +5 / -3

They couldn't be this powerful without having corrupted the government to give them monopolistic power over the competition and spending bill pork.

Libertarianism enables this bullshit

There is a solution, and Antifa, libtards and libertarians will cry Fascism.

It's the only way to stop these Jews and Megacorporations from raping the world.

2
Gizortnik 2 points ago +5 / -3

It does the exact opposite of that.

The only reason they are as powerful as they are is explicitly because the government gave them monopolitic power in the first place. These public companies exist at the behest of their government regulators to gain tax income for the government. Monopolizing the economy guarantees government control over the economy. The largest businesses do not compete with the government, they're the same damn thing.

Corporations don't have to corrupt the thing that grants them the right to exist.

-2
deleted -2 points ago +2 / -4
-3
DomitiusOfMassilia [M] -3 points ago +1 / -4

Comment Removed: Rule 16

5
UsurperJoe 5 points ago +5 / -0

Go to Reddit, Commie

-3
Gizortnik -3 points ago +5 / -8

Oh, quit crying about Jews. Don't act like a White socialist wouldn't slit your throat all the same.

3
UsurperJoe 3 points ago +6 / -3

I see Jewish power as the adhesive, bonding corporations and government.

4
Gizortnik 4 points ago +7 / -3

Then you misunderstand the essence of power itself. Power needs no religious or ethnic justification. Those justifications are merely for the useful idiots that submit themselves to power.

-5
DomitiusOfMassilia [M] -5 points ago +1 / -6

Comment Reported for: 16: Identity attacks

Comment Removed

2
evilmathmagician 2 points ago +2 / -0

I think that rule is really lacking. As best as I can remember his top level post, it was accusing jews of being to blame for some thing. That isn't the same as accusing them of conspiring. I can accuse my in-laws of doing something bad without them needing to have conspired it into action.

Maybe I'm wrong? No one knows but you now so the opportunity for me to potentially find I was mistaken is stripped.

Also, I would like the opportunity to discuss the use of labels with some of our members and it becomes impossible to do so organically when my opportunities are deleted.

So here's a proposition of compromise: get wordfilters as a mod power. Rule16 is there for the longevity of our survival, I get it. But straight deletion? I think it'd be sufficient to delete or change the offending word (and we have banned words within certain contexts, let's not pretend otherwise). Doing this would allow for bystanders to learn from secondhand experience what some of our rules actually mean by granting them contextual examples that no longer break the rule.

Wordfilters get used often on imageboards for moderation purposes and also jokes. Normally it's done to auto-translate site-wide one phrase to another phrase. 4chan filters the word "soy" to "onions" for example (long story). To be clear, I'm not suggesting you make a site-wide filter. I'm suggesting you force an edit on posts marked for deletion where it can be solved by changing one word.

Would that post have been okay using a euphemism like "vampire"? If it were something benign like "cats" it would surely pass.

To bystanders: yes, inviting spez shit sounds dumb as fuck, but I'd rather that than entire posts get nuked.

1
UsurperJoe 1 point ago +3 / -2

Go to Reddit, Commie

8
deleted 8 points ago +8 / -0
7
WhitePhoenix [S] 7 points ago +8 / -1

The issue I have with that thought is if you do remove such protections and it doesn't stop their behavior, then what?

That's why I agree with Judge Clarence's interpretation of these social media companies as common carriers. It's a last resort but a lot of companies including Google, et al. have become too big to fail. I can't think of an easy way to do this because we are treading a dangerous tight rope.

I don't like giving government the club, but none of us have the power as individuals to stop something like Twitter, Facebook, Google. They're an embedded part of our cultural lexicon we can't remove.

4
Gizortnik 4 points ago +5 / -1

The issue I have with that thought is if you do remove such protections and it doesn't stop their behavior, then what?

Their behavior is fundamentally not profitable. The only reason they can continue to do what they are doing is because they are being supported outside of being unprofitable.

Think about YouTube for a second. Susan lost Alphabet something like $80 Billion in valuation because of her policies on YouTube. In a profit driven business, that kind of loss would be so utterly devastating that she would have been thrown out onto her fucking neck. The reason it doesn't matter is to Alphabet is because they are able to be supported by vast swaths of money being pulled not only from other sources, but from the government as well. Those protections, and that funding, means that no matter what the market says, no matter how much the program looses, they are going to keep pushing.

There is already a market demand for them to stop what they are doing, the state is protecting them. Stop protecting them and their behavior will change or they will die, as all unprofitable businesses must... unless they are protected by the state which never makes money.

5
UsurperJoe 5 points ago +5 / -0

Congress steals from Us and gives it to pharmaceutical corporations.

Lockdowns destroy the competition.

Regulations destroy the competition.

Our federal government is totally corrupt

4
Gizortnik 4 points ago +4 / -0

Correct.

3
flashersenpai 3 points ago +3 / -0

Common carriers exist because the government gave them monopoly power. You're going to have to keep going down level after level to come to a solution here.

-3
deleted -3 points ago +3 / -6
13
deleted 13 points ago +14 / -1
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
DomitiusOfMassilia [M] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Comment Reported for: Rule 15: Slurs

Please do not direct slurs at the user.

3
elleand202 3 points ago +3 / -0

Libertarians like you have no answer to what to do about monopolies or cartels. (Which are not free markets.) Just outcompete guys. The invisible hand will guide you.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
AntonioOfVenice 2 points ago +5 / -3

I think you're a good guy, but very misguided.

More government is good when it balances extreme corporate power.

I think it's Francis Fukuyama who in his book on Political Order states that in the places where the monarchy was weak and the aristocracy was strong, you had local tyranny and national weakness (e.g. Poland). In places where monarchy was strong and aristocracy was weak, you get tyranny (e.g. Russia). In places where they are both strong, they balance each other out, and you get liberty (e.g. England).

Right now, we have the first case. We have corporate tyranny. And you can say that people get what they 'deserve'. Fine. But I don't want things to go to hell because of people's ideological commitments to 'free markets'. I want things to get better.

And it's very simplistic to state that people are voting with their wallets, when these megacorps are monopolies. Their monopolistic power must first be broken, and then maybe the free market will function properly.

5
Gizortnik 5 points ago +6 / -1

More government is good when it balances extreme corporate power.

Extreme corporate power is literally the cause of the government's actions. Socialism does not save us from Keynsianism. Keynsianism is Socialism.

These companies are a) not actually private, and b) extensions of government power. The only way you can cause these companies to actually take a loss, *is to keep them from leeching off of the government's vast stolen wealth.

0
AntonioOfVenice 0 points ago +1 / -1

Extreme corporate power is literally the cause of the government's actions. Socialism does not save us from Keynsianism. Keynsianism is Socialism.

Regulation is neither socialism nor Keynesianism - an Keynsianism is not socialism.

1
Gizortnik 1 point ago +1 / -0

Regulation is an aspect of Socialism.

Keynsianism is absolutely Socialism.

1
AntonioOfVenice 1 point ago +1 / -0

Socialism is government ownership of the means of production.

Ergo, neither Keynesianism nor Regulation are 'socialism'.

1
flashersenpai 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think one could argue that the effect of regulation is to create a benefit for one party at the detriment to others through government power. Just because the beneficiary of the regulation isn't always a corporation doesn't mean it isn't a socialization of some kind. Maybe it's just niggling over the word socialism.

-1
deleted -1 points ago +4 / -5
4
AntonioOfVenice 4 points ago +4 / -0

Read the third paragraph again. It's exactly what I said. If that's too much for you to read, let me quote the part where it says that.

In places where monarchy was strong and aristocracy was weak, you get tyranny (e.g. Russia).

Powers have to be balanced for there to be liberty.

-1
SparkMandrill83 -1 points ago +2 / -3

lawl at England being an example of a liberty focused country. The country where people get arrested for hate speech and rapists go free because they're a "protcted class".

More government is never good, and is literally how we got into this mess. Remove 230 protections and watch these social media sites crumble. Dismantle the Federal Reserve and all central banking, and watch actual competitive sites flourish. Until those things happen, "more government" isnt going to do jack shit but make the problem worse.

3
AntonioOfVenice 3 points ago +3 / -0

Maybe the use of 'aristocracy' in the context of Poland should have tipped you off that we are not talking about 2021.

0
SparkMandrill83 0 points ago +1 / -1

Im only interested in the present, thanks. England has a very strong government and is a Orwellian laughing stock.

0
AntonioOfVenice 0 points ago +1 / -1

Then maybe don't start screeching about the present when people are talking about the past.

7
SparkMandrill83 7 points ago +8 / -1

Every official Libertarian party is run by controlled opposition. They always come out in support of whatever the left is advocating for and will twist themselves into knots to justify it.

6
cccpneveragain 6 points ago +8 / -2

I thought I was Libertarian for a while. Still not sure I'm not in theory, but I'm not even in the ballpark of their party. They are nothing more than not-totally-socialist liberals.

The thing is I would love to keep all of this de-regulated, but it's clear that just won't work. At the sake of sounding extremely Communist (which is close to the pinnacle of insults to me), I just don't think these mega-corporations can be allowed to keep going. I love capitalism, but when it's nothing but giants that either buy up or crush the competition, you have what we are dealing with today. There's a lot of things I just can't find a small local business to buy from--price and all aside they just don't exist anymore. The bad part is I haven't the slightest idea how to fix it. I think regulation, such as Justice Thomas is suggesting here, is probably the best way. Otherwise, break them up--and watch them rise right back up.

2
SparkMandrill83 2 points ago +6 / -4

Those megacorps only exist because of government regulation. Remove those protections, sites like Gab and .win will flourish, while twitter and facebook die off. Its that fucking simple.

3
Gizortnik 3 points ago +4 / -1

I'll try to explain that, but people are convinced that the government is the only way to protect them from institutions that the government created.

2
SparkMandrill83 2 points ago +3 / -1

Its funny because we're all aware of 230 and the protections it gives. Literally from the government. People here just want the quicker solution which is government smash

5
Gizortnik 5 points ago +6 / -1

The thing that confuses people about 230 is that it's not a simple negative law. It's not saying "don't do this". It's an exception to a legal framework that promotes civil litigation against commentary.

The law already existed to strictly control speech by supporting expensive civil lawsuits, and then granted immunity if tech firms promised to moderate their comment sections. 230 actually exists to support content moderation, not remove it.

That's why if you remove it, you'd open up social media firms to civil lawsuits.

If you want to promote free speech, you have end 230 and simultaneously remove the underlying laws enabling the right to sue publishers for some of their comments. You get peace from an armed society, and you get more tolerant discourse when you refuse to protect people from attacks and insults.

If you want to free speech, you have to not protect people from it.

230 is written in such a weird and backwards way to how you would think a law would normally work, that it confuses people.

2
cccpneveragain 2 points ago +3 / -1

That's actually a super good point that I wasn't thinking about. Over-regulation stifing the smaller competitors. If anything just through red tape alone.

My mind was more on "tangible" companies (meaning those that deal in physical goods) when I commented that. Still though, I can see where dropping regulations would make at least some of them better able to compete. It's not perfect, but what we are doing now sucks...so...what can it hurt?

1
ernsithe 1 point ago +1 / -0

I wish it were but you still need to deal with the payment processors being able to nuke their partner's competitors of the face of the web.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
4
yoisi 4 points ago +4 / -0

i support libertarian principles but obviously this so called "libertarian party " does not. If they think that its ok for social media companies that monopolize the public speaking sphere to censor and ban people

4
Galean 4 points ago +4 / -0

If this companies would have censored leftists they would have demanded they be treated as utilities.

3
realerfunction 3 points ago +3 / -0

noooo you can't use the state to compel corporations to play by the rules!