I used to read ars technica because I was into tech stuff. Then they came down with TDS and anyone who asked in the comments that they should, you know, talk about tech stuff got attacked. One brilliant commenter said that there needs to be a govt run news source to combat right wing propaganda. That’s when I stopped reading them
there needs to be a govt run news source to combat right wing propaganda
Is that guy unaware of the existence of PBS, NPR, and public schooling? Not mention the same people running the government run the corporate news sources as well.
I was a long time subscriber there; my account became old enough to legally buy beer last year.
The insanity at Ars started a long time before 2016, it started with Bush 43. It got infinitesimally worse as Obama administration progressed, and got just absolutely unbearable in 2016. I dropped my annual prescription in 2016, and only really go back to the forums to post in a very few selective game threads.
The user base of Ars trends heavily towards white collar college graduate professionals, and we all know how radical universities got in late 2000s early 2010s. Most of the Ars userbase is just as clueless, just as disconnected, as the woke left in every other profession.
No one there has the self awareness to realize that the present ability of tech monopolies to both enjoy broad Section 230 protections against legal liability and the ability to curate content is not due to Section 230 as written, but rather court interpretation of same. Federal courts have basically given tech monopolies carte blanche to do whatever they want, and will not allow plaintiffs the legal remedies built into Section 230.
Despite Thomas' views, courts have ruled that the First Amendment does not prohibit websites from restricting speech on their platforms.
This is a total non-sequitur, and I have a hard time believing the author isn't trying to be intentionally deceptive.
His opinion doesn't say that the First Amendment does that. It proposes that maybe these platforms should be treated as common carriers which aren't allowed to discriminate in that way.
Yea, policy on the forums was to ban all discussion about it. Just like GG, any discussion got jumped on hard.
PeterB had well over 50 thousand posts on the Ars forums before he changed his handle, and had tens of thousands after his name change. He was famous for being a total dick.
I don't get why we have to talk about the 1st amendment when the problem isn't Big Tech's ability or lack of ability to speak their mind. The problem is that they have virtual monopolies and that they clearly collude -- against their users and against competitors. That should be, and probably is, against the law on the grounds of monopoly or racketeering.
Start enforcing anti-trust on the biggest corps in America. Duh. Somehow Microsoft got in trouble for forcing people to install Internet Explorer (without preventing them from installing Firefox). That seems a lot less harmful than what, say, Apple is doing today. Apple won't let you install any unapproved software. Google bundles all kinds of their apps with Android.
Microsoft should have been broken up. Software would be a lot better, today, if they did, and I think their shareholders would have been better off, too. Monopoly stifles innovation. There's a good reason it's illegal.
I used to read ars technica because I was into tech stuff. Then they came down with TDS and anyone who asked in the comments that they should, you know, talk about tech stuff got attacked. One brilliant commenter said that there needs to be a govt run news source to combat right wing propaganda. That’s when I stopped reading them
Is that guy unaware of the existence of PBS, NPR, and public schooling? Not mention the same people running the government run the corporate news sources as well.
Exactly what I was thinking.
I was a long time subscriber there; my account became old enough to legally buy beer last year.
The insanity at Ars started a long time before 2016, it started with Bush 43. It got infinitesimally worse as Obama administration progressed, and got just absolutely unbearable in 2016. I dropped my annual prescription in 2016, and only really go back to the forums to post in a very few selective game threads.
The user base of Ars trends heavily towards white collar college graduate professionals, and we all know how radical universities got in late 2000s early 2010s. Most of the Ars userbase is just as clueless, just as disconnected, as the woke left in every other profession.
No one there has the self awareness to realize that the present ability of tech monopolies to both enjoy broad Section 230 protections against legal liability and the ability to curate content is not due to Section 230 as written, but rather court interpretation of same. Federal courts have basically given tech monopolies carte blanche to do whatever they want, and will not allow plaintiffs the legal remedies built into Section 230.
Oh wow. Ok I hadn’t been reading it that long but what you say makes a lot of sense.
they got taken over by shill accounts a few years ago. very sad
theyll push evs and anti drumpf garbage very often.
Which sucks because I used to enjoy the site
This is a total non-sequitur, and I have a hard time believing the author isn't trying to be intentionally deceptive.
His opinion doesn't say that the First Amendment does that. It proposes that maybe these platforms should be treated as common carriers which aren't allowed to discriminate in that way.
Friendly reminder that Ars Technica employed convicted kiddy diddler Peter Bright until the day he was jailed, and never denounced him.
Yea, policy on the forums was to ban all discussion about it. Just like GG, any discussion got jumped on hard.
PeterB had well over 50 thousand posts on the Ars forums before he changed his handle, and had tens of thousands after his name change. He was famous for being a total dick.
Ars is fake and gay.
LIBERAL ATTACKS BLACK MAN fixt
I don't get why we have to talk about the 1st amendment when the problem isn't Big Tech's ability or lack of ability to speak their mind. The problem is that they have virtual monopolies and that they clearly collude -- against their users and against competitors. That should be, and probably is, against the law on the grounds of monopoly or racketeering.
Start enforcing anti-trust on the biggest corps in America. Duh. Somehow Microsoft got in trouble for forcing people to install Internet Explorer (without preventing them from installing Firefox). That seems a lot less harmful than what, say, Apple is doing today. Apple won't let you install any unapproved software. Google bundles all kinds of their apps with Android.
Microsoft should have been broken up. Software would be a lot better, today, if they did, and I think their shareholders would have been better off, too. Monopoly stifles innovation. There's a good reason it's illegal.