It might actually be fair to view and regulate the social networks exactly like public telecom utilities:
- they are primarily for communication
- they benefit (and suffer) from network externalities, which means the space will inevitably be dominated by large players
- refusal of service has increasing potential for negative impact on users as the networks become more integral to commerce, employment, and other aspects of day-to-day life
I'm not sure exactly what the rules should be, but there must be something more just and reasonable than "Zuck's way or the highway."
And here's an even larger question about the new political dynamics: have regular people not been relegated to second-class citizenship behind first-class corporate "persons" that the Bill of Rights was never intended to protect?
You must be 20 years younger than me, video games have been stagnant since at least 1972. Think about it: Tetris was Pong with a Russian soundtrack. Super Mario Bros. was kinda only Pong with platforming. And Doom was just Pong but with guns and demons. Hell, even Minecraft is Pong with some insignificant open-ended lego aesthetics and a crafting system. Nothing anywhat innovative anywhere.
tu quoque: accusing another of authoritarian hypocrisy does not invalidate your own authoritarian acts
it might make you feel better about the commission of those acts, however. might even help you to convince yourself that they are justified
get educated. you are on the internet. there is no excuse for being this uninformed
Ebay Marketplace is not a retailer. It is a platform that facilitates trade between private individuals; a piece of commercial infrastructure.
Given the multitude of items that individuals regularly trade on Ebay's platform, given that many of these items are potentially offensive to certain people, and given that Ebay generally allows all of these items to be exchanged without intervention, the present circumstance does raise questions about Ebay's decision to interfere with the private exchange of Dr. Seuss literature on their platform.
As one of the worlds largest online marketplaces, Ebay is indeed in a position to suppress free exchange between individuals on its platform. Luckily, Ebay is not the only marketplace on the internet and individuals who find themselves so suppressed can simply trade elsewhere.
However, Ebay marketplace is sufficiently large and ubiquitous, it's recent Seuss ban so bizarre, and the ban occurred in such a tight concert with the recent media reports and calls to condemn the "problematic" Seuss material that it is not surprising that some people find the ban to be concerning.
Is it within Ebay's rights? It would seem so. Will it be good for their business? Maybe. Does it make everyone feel good inside when an important trade platform bends to calls for censorship? Perhaps not.
What will the censors call to ban next time? Will Ebay oblige? Will others? Is this a slippery slope?
I don't think these are unreasonable questions to ask in light of all of this. And while I don't personally find this story as dire as some are decrying it for, I must admit I am troubled at the morally-righteous trumpeteers who are celebrating the censorship.
hahaha more whiny and delicate how exactly? for standing up for his identity group? for positing exactly the same kind of shit victim argument in favor of white men that every "intersectionally disadvantaged" group has posited on their behalf constantly?
If you don't see moderately successful white men being repeatedly trashed in this sick ideology, then you are blind. Simply pointing this out as a white guy earns you fragile snowflake status apparently... lol
Our society has been based, for hundreds of years now, on the ideal of the individual as a sovereign unit. Now, you could argue that our baseline for what constitutes a sovereign individual has changed over that time, and in my view we have indeed made massive positive social progress on that front on the road to recognizing the basic human sovereignty of all people.
But what is happening today is we are watching that being intentionally torn down in favor of racial and sexual identity. Individual sovereignty is now in danger of becoming an asterisk behind your skin color and your genitalia. Somehow, racism is no longer racist and sexism is no longer sexist. And it's blatant, overt; members of the new KKK wear no hoods. We had all better just bend over and accept our place in the new identity politics hierarchy, individual sovereignty be damned.
And if you point it out that makes you a whiny snowflake princess. Laughable, really
no mod points here
but nice Smirnoff reversal
"It is hard to overstate the debt that we owe to men and women of genius." -- Robert G. Ingersoll