Mailchimp Shuts Down GreenMedInfo’s Newsletter for “Anti-Vaccine” Content

[Swordsmyth]

Recently, GreenMedInfo announced that they have been banned by MailChimp stating:
With the recent censorship and de-platforming efforts via social media outlets like Pinterest (http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/pinterest-bans-greenmedinfo-posting-natural-health-vaccine-safety-info), and Facebook (http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/gates-foundation-funded-fact-checker-politifact-censors-greenmedinfo-facebook-rep), the last thing we expected was that our presumably apolitical and neutral email service provider would so suddenly and blatantly violate our freedom of speech by shutting our account down. After all, you also have the right to enjoy a free newsletter you and 300,000 others around the world voluntarily and enthusiastically subscribed to. Feel free to contact Mailchimp directly (https://mailchimp.com/contact/), leave a review on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/mailchimp/) or call them at (678) 999-0141 to let them know how you feel about this. Also, please share this information with those concerned about the growing censorship problem.

https://www.endtime.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Screen-Shot-2019-06-19-at-4.18.14-PM.png


https://www.endtime.com/prophecy-news/mailchimp-shuts-down-greenmedinfos-newsletter-for-anti-vaccine-content/

[donnay]

Tech Tyranny is as real as Medical Tyranny and of course they are colluding with each other here.

[Working Poor]

Since I don't see a link to GREENMEDINFO I thought I would provide you with one:

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/

[kpitcher]

Somehow people assume a private company has to allow a customer to say whatever they want and call it freedom of speech? A private company decided not to do business, I looked at their terms and they do say they can drop an account at any time and for any reason.

"You or Mailchimp may terminate the Agreement at any time and for any reason by terminating your Mailchimp account or giving notice to the other party. We may suspend the Service to you at any time, with or without cause."

Plenty of other email companies out there to potentially do business with.

[donnay]

Somehow people assume a private company has to allow a customer to say whatever they want and call it freedom of speech? A private company decided not to do business, I looked at their terms and they do say they can drop an account at any time and for any reason.

"You or Mailchimp may terminate the Agreement at any time and for any reason by terminating your Mailchimp account or giving notice to the other party. We may suspend the Service to you at any time, with or without cause."

Plenty of other email companies out there to potentially do business with.

It's a marketing platform. https://mailchimp.com/pricing/

[Anti Federalist]

Plenty of other email companies out there to potentially do business with.

That will ban unapproved thought as well.

And if you try and start one that will not, then the banksters will pull your accounts.

[Weston White]

Somehow people assume a private company has to allow a customer to say whatever they want and call it freedom of speech? A private company decided not to do business, I looked at their terms and they do say they can drop an account at any time and for any reason.

"You or Mailchimp may terminate the Agreement at any time and for any reason by terminating your Mailchimp account or giving notice to the other party. We may suspend the Service to you at any time, with or without cause."

Plenty of other email companies out there to potentially do business with.

Hello, it's called censorship and it's a very bad business practice, companies that participate in it should be shunned, censured, and ridiculed out of existence by all. Remaining unbiased or maintaining impartiality is paramount for all service oriented businesses--else begins their downfall, a la Facebook.

[jmdrake]

Hello, it's called censorship and it's a very bad business practice, companies that participate in it should be shunned, censured, and ridiculed out of existence by all. Remaining unbiased or maintaining impartiality is paramount for all service oriented businesses--else begins their downfall, a la Facebook.

Thread winner! Yes a private company has the right to censor and consumers have a right to punish them for their censorship. All people who love freedom should boycott MailChimp.

[TheCount]

Hello, it's called censorship and it's a very bad business practice

If that's true, then it'll solve itself, won't it?

[r3volution 3.0]

With the recent censorship and de-platforming efforts via social media outlets like Pinterest, and Facebook, the last thing we expected was that our presumably apolitical and neutral email service provider would so suddenly and blatantly violate our freedom of speech by shutting our account down.

Freedom of speech is about preventing the state from prosecuting you for speech.

It is not about you having the right to use other people's (i.e. Mailchimp's) property without their permission.


After all, you also have the right to enjoy a free newsletter you and 300,000 others around the world voluntarily and enthusiastically subscribed to.

No, your customers have the right to receive whatever they are entitled to receive under their contracts with you or anyone else.

Neither they nor you have the right to foist any contract on an unwilling third party (i.e. Mailchimp).


Feel free to contact Mailchimp directly, leave a review on Facebook or call them at (678) 999-0141 to let them know how you feel about this. Also, please share this information with those concerned about the growing censorship problem.

You misspelled "exercise of property rights."


Hello, it's called censorship and it's a very bad business practice, companies that participate in it should be shunned, censured, and ridiculed out of existence by all. Remaining unbiased or maintaining impartiality is paramount for all service oriented businesses--else begins their downfall, a la Facebook.

That remains to be seen; if it is, they'll lose business to other companies, or change their policy, or go out of business.

Either way, problem solved: no need for any government involvement.

...not that you proposed any, but that's where all of this is heading.


Somehow people assume a private company has to allow a customer to say whatever they want and call it freedom of speech? A private company decided not to do business, I looked at their terms and they do say they can drop an account at any time and for any reason.

"You or Mailchimp may terminate the Agreement at any time and for any reason by terminating your Mailchimp account or giving notice to the other party. We may suspend the Service to you at any time, with or without cause."

Plenty of other email companies out there to potentially do business with.

Hear Hear

[Anti Federalist]

Freedom of speech is about preventing the state from prosecuting you for speech.

It is not about you having the right to use other people's (i.e. Mailchimp's) property without their permission.

Keep on saying that...

Big Business can and will tyrannize you just as fast and just as effectively as Big Government.

[r3volution 3.0]

Keep on saying that...

Rest assured


Big Business can and will tyrannize you just as fast and just as effectively as Big Government.

It absolutely cannot, ever, under any circumstances, by definition

[Swordsmyth]

Rest assured



It absolutely cannot, ever, under any circumstances, by definition
Yes it can, just like Feudal Lords.

[timosman]

Yes it can, just like Feudal Lords.

But I owned them! :tears:

[r3volution 3.0]

Yes it can, just like Feudal Lords.

Go on komrade, explain to me how a business, operating in the market, not violating anyone's property rights, is going to oppress you.

...by violating your "right" to use their property without their permission?

[timosman]

Go on komrade, explain to me how a business, operating in the market, not violating anyone's property rights, is going to oppress you.

...by violating your "right" to use their property without their permission?

Even you will have to admit their preferences are rather frivolous. What if they are psychopaths? :confused:

[Swordsmyth]

Go on komrade, explain to me how a business, operating in the market, not violating anyone's property rights, is going to oppress you.

...by violating your "right" to use their property without their permission?
As they use their connections to steal all the wealth and all the property they will begin to "own" everything and tell everyone what they are allowed to do on their "private property", just as Feudal lords claimed to own personally all the land and have a right to tell everyone what to do.

It is happening before our very eyes even if it isn't complete yet, the central banks and governments are helping the oligarchs to steal everything and they are beginning to tell everyone what they can do as if they were royalty.

[r3volution 3.0]

As they use their connections to steal all the wealth and all the property they will begin to "own" everything and tell everyone what they are allowed to do on their "private property", just as Feudal lords claimed to own personally all the land and have a right to tell everyone what to do.

You mean, to government?

Well duh, businesses lobby government to violate property rights (e.g. to get subsidies).

But that's not a market problem, that's a government interference in the market problem.


It is happening before our very eyes even if it isn't complete yet, the central banks and governments are helping the oligarchs to steal everything and they are beginning to tell everyone what they can do as if they were royalty.

QED

[Swordsmyth]

You mean, to government?

Well duh, businesses lobby government to violate property rights (e.g. to get subsidies).

But that's not a market problem, that's a government interference in the market problem.



QED
The point is that the oligarchs and government are beginning to merge, government helps the oligarchs steal everything and they help government to tyrannize us in ways government isn't allowed to.

[eleganz]

At least Mailchimp had to balls to be direct about the reason. Unlike youtube, facebook, twitter, instagram, all just hiding behind their community guidelines to censor whoever they wish.

[r3volution 3.0]

The point is that the oligarchs and government are beginning to merge, government helps the oligarchs steal everything and they help government to tyrannize us in ways government isn't allowed to.

The only merger is between the fuzzy ideas in your head.

A business operating in the market, respecting property rights, cannot tyrannize anybody - by definition.

The state certainly can, and that is the problem, no matter whether it's doing it for a block of voters in Miami-Dade or Exxon.

[Swordsmyth]

The only merger is between the fuzzy ideas in your head.

A business operating in the market, respecting property rights, cannot tyrannize anybody - by definition.

The state certainly can, and that is the problem, no matter whether it's doing it for a block of voters in Miami-Dade or Exxon.
If the oligarchs steal everything (and they are making great progress towards that end) then they become Feudal lords and a crypto-government.

If someone claims to own everything and have a right to tell you what to do then how are they not a government?

[Anti Federalist]

It absolutely cannot, ever, under any circumstances, by definition

Sure it can...and has.

[Anti Federalist]

The only merger is between the fuzzy ideas in your head.

A business operating in the market, respecting property rights, cannot tyrannize anybody - by definition.

The state certainly can, and that is the problem, no matter whether it's doing it for a block of voters in Miami-Dade or Exxon.

Uh huh...and when they cease doing that...tyranny starts.

[r3volution 3.0]

If the oligarchs steal everything (and they are making great progress towards that end) then they become Feudal lords and a crypto-government.

Whatever scenario Tucker Carlson planted in your mind, the root of the problem, to the extent there is one, will be some action or inaction on the part of the state (presumably action, as in printing lots of money to benefit politically connected corporations, contra inaction, like looking the other way while Wells Fargo sends goons to steal your wallet), and that state (in)action should be your focus - not making anti-capitalist noises, blaming the "evil corporations," and calling for MORE state interference (which you somehow naively think won't be in the service of the special interests who you yourself claim control the state!).


If someone claims to own everything and have a right to tell you what to do then how are they not a government?

You'll have to elaborate, as I have no idea what you're talking about.


Uh huh...and when they cease doing that...tyranny starts.

If a business is violating people's property rights, it is doing so with the support (or, more likely, through the direct intermediation) of the state.

As I said to SS above, make that your focus - the state's behavior, since, without that, there can be no oppression by business.

[Swordsmyth]

You'll have to elaborate, as I have no idea what you're talking about.
That is what the oligarchs are doing, they use government to steal everything so that there is no competition or any chance of any and then claim "private property rights" to tell everyone who has no other choice what they can or can't do, that is exactly the same as the government.
It is Neo-feudalism, the "aristocracy" claimed to own everything and have a right to tell the peasants on "their land" what they could or couldn't do and our emerging "aristocracy" is creating a new version of that style of government.

[r3volution 3.0]

That is what the oligarchs are doing, they use government to steal everything so that there is no competition or any chance of any and then claim "private property rights" to tell everyone who has no other choice what they can or can't do, that is exactly the same as the government.
It is Neo-feudalism, the "aristocracy" claimed to own everything and have a right to tell the peasants on "their land" what they could or couldn't do and our emerging "aristocracy" is creating a new version of that style of government.

Then I repeat:


Whatever scenario Tucker Carlson planted in your mind, the root of the problem, to the extent there is one, will be some action or inaction on the part of the state (presumably action, as in printing lots of money to benefit politically connected corporations, contra inaction, like looking the other way while Wells Fargo sends goons to steal your wallet), and that state (in)action should be your focus - not making anti-capitalist noises, blaming the "evil corporations," and calling for MORE state interference (which you somehow naively think won't be in the service of the special interests who you yourself claim control the state!).

[Swordsmyth]

Then I repeat:
How are we supposed to fix the problems with government if we are deplatformed and unpersoned by the oligarchs?

You can worry about your circulation after the surgeon repairs your torn artery but until then you may need a tourniquet even if that is bad for your circulation.

[Stratovarious]

Somehow people assume a private company has to allow a customer to say whatever they want and call it freedom of speech? A private company decided not to do business, I looked at their terms and they do say they can drop an account at any time and for any reason.

"You or Mailchimp may terminate the Agreement at any time and for any reason by terminating your Mailchimp account or giving notice to the other party. We may suspend the Service to you at any time, with or without cause."

Plenty of other email companies out there to potentially do business with.

That is correct, they may be privately held but they are de facto public utilities.

[Stratovarious]

Somehow people assume a private company has to allow a customer to say whatever they want and call it freedom of speech? A private company decided not to do business, I looked at their terms and they do say they can drop an account at any time and for any reason.

"You or Mailchimp may terminate the Agreement at any time and for any reason by terminating your Mailchimp account or giving notice to the other party. We may suspend the Service to you at any time, with or without cause."

Plenty of other email companies out there to potentially do business with.


They are a communications 'carrier' they were not issued a license to perform as thought police.

[Swordsmyth]

That is correct, they may be privately held but they are de facto public utilities.
At the very least they are now a publisher and not a platform.

[Stratovarious]

I just sent them (Mail Chumps) a note telling them they should go into peoples
homes gestapo style , find out what their thoughts are then ban them
from being able to send email to anyone anywhere , for life.

[Stratovarious]

At the very least they are now a publisher and not a platform.
I assumed they were an email service, shows what I know........ :shrugs: I don't get out much...

[r3volution 3.0]

How are we supposed to fix the problems with government if we are deplatformed and unpersoned by the oligarchs?

The only problem with the "oligarchs" are problems of government.

As for how you solve any of those problems, when most voters and special interests don't want them solved...

...welcome to democracy, ain't it swell?

[parocks]

If that's true, then it'll solve itself, won't it?

A problem that the Ron Paul folks have always has since 2007 at least is this idea that we do live in a free market economy that works by free market principles.

We want that, and we pretend that we have that, at base, with flaws that we identify, and we resist any efforts to place more restrictions on our our ideal, partially functioning, but ultimately functioning, at root, free market system.

Nope.

We're all screwed. There is no free market right now. And we would all oppose any laws to fix this "we're all screwed" problem.

The government has made it illegal to just go and kill the bad guys. The government is working with the bad guys. They're on the same team.

[parocks]

That is correct, they may be privately held but they are de facto public utilities.

Yeah, de facto public utilities.

We really need some sort of law. I guess I'm not a libertarian. Maybe I just understand that if we added this law, the country would go from, not at all free market to still not at all free market.

A few ideas about proposed laws.

1) If you start out as a normal non censoring company, then you become a near monopoly, you can't start censoring.

2) If you aren't explicitly political, no censorship.

4) Censorship is more acceptable when you're talking about a political website, or, an ideological website.

5) The phenomenon called "triggered" or "triggering" or anything like that, is a mental illness. We don't shape the world in order to make crazy people happy and comfortable. We treat crazy people so that they can function in the existing world with sane people.

6) Any websites that involve important, standard communications = like facebook, twitter, mailchimp, youtube = no censorship.

I'd like to see the Sherman Anti-Trust Act just rip everything apart, which would be separate from this law.

[timosman]

The biggest lie ever - we represent the normal. :tears:

[specsaregood]

That is correct, they may be privately held but they are de facto public utilities.

they are in no way a public utility. they are much more like a private mailbox/shipping store in a strip mall. and their terms of use on their site makes it plain that they censor and limit who can use their service and for what content.

[r3volution 3.0]

At the very least they are now a publisher and not a platform.

A) Under what circumstances should Person X be held liable for Person Y's speech?

B) What is the underlying crime, committed by Y, that you're concerned about?

...don't cite me the current statutes, I'm asking how you think the law ought to be.

[UWDude]

Internet is the post office of the 21st century. It should be set up with all the rights of a utility.


their terms of use on their cite makes it plain that they censor and limit who can use their service and for what content.

and they are literally 70% foreign, and have foreign ideas about what freedom of speech means.

And the ones who do understand what freedom of speech means, must keep silent, or lose their jobs.

And yeah, work voluntary contract, blah blah.

But really., who the fuck is really running these silicon valley corporations?

It was the fuckers we were forced to bail out for $700B cuz too big to fail.
They are still a cabal of majority shareholders.

I KNOW WHO MY ENEMIES ARE
THEY DESERVE HASTY EXECUTIONS
FUCK THEIR RIGHTS

[oyarde]

I do not use male chump nor would I but I do find it curious a private mail co doing business would be so concerned if you are anti vacs . Why would they care ? Also kind of hard to believe you approve an account for a greenmed without knowing it would violate your suddenly very biased opinions .

[UWDude]

I do not use male chump nor would I but I do find it curious a private mail co doing business would be so concerned if you are anti vacs . Why would they care ?

Because they are culling the weak minded.

[Swordsmyth]

A) Under what circumstances should Person X be held liable for Person Y's speech?

B) What is the underlying crime, committed by Y, that you're concerned about?

...don't cite me the current statutes, I'm asking how you think the law ought to be.

If you take editorial control of content on a subjective basis as opposed to a published list of what you won't allow then you are responsible for anything you allow.

[timosman]

I do not use male chump nor would I but I do find it curious a private mail co doing business would be so concerned if you are anti vacs . Why would they care ? Also kind of hard to believe you approve an account for a greenmed without knowing it would violate your suddenly very biased opinions .

AKA Making shit up as we go. :tears:

[r3volution 3.0]

If you take editorial control of content on a subjective basis as opposed to a published list of what you won't allow then you are responsible for anything you allow.

Define "editorial control."

[timosman]

Define "editorial control."

Before and after are different.

[Swordsmyth]

Internet is the post office of the 21st century.
If the Post Office kept up with the times and offered a neutral 1stA abiding service in each internet category we could ignore the transgressions of private parties even when they were wrong.

Neutral distribution of information is vital to a republic.

[timosman]

If the Post Office kept up with the times and offered a neutral 1stA abiding service in each internet category we could ignore the transgressions of private parties even when they were wrong.

Neutral distribution of information is vital to a republic.

What if you are crazy? :confused:

[UWDude]

Define "editorial control."

Banning you, would be editorial control.

Everyone knows you are a sock puppet.

Selective enforcement and all.

Everyone knows you have been banned before.

But the only reason anyone would want you banned, is because they ideologically disagreed with you.

[Swordsmyth]

Define "editorial control."
It's plain English.

The kind of control an editor exercises.

[timosman]

Banning you, would be editorial control.

Everyone knows you are a sock puppet.

Selective enforcement and all.

Everyone knows you have been banned before.

But the only reason anyone would want you banned, is because they ideologically disagreed with you.

I am not sure about Che. :cool:

[Swordsmyth]

What if you are crazy? :confused:
Honk Honk.

[UWDude]

Neutral distribution of information is vital to a republic.

The truth must constantly be guarded.
It is always under attack.
They are always trying to find slimy, underhanded ways to shut us up.
Shut the people up. Give control to the bailed out multiple time bankers.
The majority shareholders of all these corporations. They run the boards.
And they are far more than just American bankers.

I cant wait until it is completely legal to have lotteries, deciding which banker gets hung on a reality show, and who gets to kick the bucket from beneath them.

I can't wait, until it is not only legal, but socially acceptable, even encouraged to do so. online, and is a giant online money making scheme. Executions for entertainment. Bye bye bankers.

And they know this hatred for them exists.

[r3volution 3.0]

It's plain English.

The kind of control an editor exercises.

If I own a forum, do I have "editorial control" of posted content if I:
--review every post before publishing
--review 1/10 posts
--review 1/1000 posts
--review 1/1M posts
--review 1/1B posts
--review no posts?

What kind of control did a traditional editor (i.e. of a print publishing venue) have when these rules were made?

[timosman]

Honk Honk.

Sounds good to me. :D

[UWDude]

If own a forum, do I have editorial control of posted content if I:
--review every post before publishing
--review 1/10 posts
--review 1/1000 posts
--review 1/1M posts
--review 1/1B posts
--review no posts?


Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, no.

If you are not reviewing posts, you have no way of censoring them, therefore, no editorial control.

[UWDude]

I am not sure about Che. :cool:

I am. Che is way cooler.

[Swordsmyth]

If I own a forum, do I have "editorial control" of posted content if I:
--review every post before publishing
--review 1/10 posts
--review 1/1000 posts
--review 1/1M posts
--review 1/1B posts
--review no posts?

What kind of control did a traditional editor (i.e. of a print publishing venue) have when these rules were made?
If you make subjective decisions about what you allow then you have editorial control, you may not exercise it in all cases, you may not even be capable of exercising it in all cases but you have it and you use it.
If you can't exercise it in all cases then maybe you should either not take it or not allow posts to appear until you can.

[r3volution 3.0]

If you make subjective decisions about what you allow then you have editorial control, you may not exercise it in all cases, you may not even be capable of exercising it in all cases but you have it and you use it.
If you can't exercise it in all cases then maybe you should either not take it or not allow posts to appear until you can.

If the platform owner doesn't/can't actually moderate content, what *decisions* are we talking about?

[Swordsmyth]

If the platform owner doesn't/can't actually moderate content, what *decisions* are we talking about?
If he doesn't then he doesn't have editorial control, if he does sometimes then we are talking about the times he does.

[r3volution 3.0]

If he doesn't then he doesn't have editorial control, if he does sometimes then we are talking about the times he does.

So wait, are you saying:

(a) platform owner is liable for any content posted if he ever does any moderating (whether he review that particular content or not)

or (b) platform owner is liable only for content which he came actually across in the course of moderating?

[Swordsmyth]

So wait, are you saying:

(a) platform owner is liable for any content posted if he ever does any moderating (whether he review that particular content or not)

or (b) platform owner is liable only for content which he came actually across in the course of moderating?
A IF THE MODERATING IS SUBJECTIVE AS OPPOSED TO ENFORCING SPECIFIC PUBLISHED RULES.

[r3volution 3.0]

A IF THE MODERATING IS SUBJECTIVE AS OPPOSED TO ENFORCING SPECIFIC PUBLISHED RULES.

Got it - if a platform owner ever does any moderating (on a subjective basis), he is liable for any content posted on the platform.

Now, to see how insane that is, let's apply the same logic to other fields, beyond publishing.

Suppose I own a car rental company.

I don't do much to vet my customers, but I do occasionally refuse to serve one who I dislike for purely subjective reasons.

If one of my customers commits a crime with one of my rental cars, I should be liable, because I use subjective criteria to decide who to rent to?

...how does that make any sense?

[Swordsmyth]

Got it - if a platform owner ever does any moderating (on a subjective basis), he is liable for any content posted on the platform.

Now, to see how insane that is, let's apply the same logic to other fields, beyond publishing.

Suppose I own a car rental company.

I don't do much to vet my customers, but I do occasionally refuse to serve one who I dislike for purely subjective reasons.

If one of my customers commits a crime with one of my rental cars, I should be liable, because I use subjective criteria to decide who to rent to?

...how does that make any sense?
Not the same thing.

You don't have the ability to undo the crime committed with the car you rented to them.

[r3volution 3.0]

Not the same thing.

You don't have the ability to undo the crime committed with the car you rented to them.

If you're saying that a platform owner should be required to remove illegal content once discovered, I agree, as does the existing law. But you're going much further than that, aren't you? You're saying that the platform owner should be liable simply because the illegal content was posted, or because he failed to take it down within some time of it being posted though he was unaware of it.

[Swordsmyth]

If you're saying that a platform owner should be required to remove illegal content once discovered, I agree, as does the existing law. But you're going much further than that, aren't you? You're saying that the platform owner should be liable simply because the illegal content was posted, or because he failed to take it down within some time of it being posted though he was unaware of it.
I never said that.

Publishers are given a reasonable amount of time to remove illegal content after being made aware of it, the big tech companies are refusing to do so or to do so in a timely manner in the case of leftists and trying to claim immunity even though they have taken editorial control.

[r3volution 3.0]

I never said that.

Publishers are given a reasonable amount of time to remove illegal content after being made aware of it, the big tech companies are refusing to do so or to do so in a timely manner in the case of leftists and trying to claim immunity even though they have taken editorial control.

If that's all your saying (they must remove illegal content within a reasonable time of discovery), I agree and, AFAIK, that's already the law.

...this would be the equivalent of holding the rental company liable for renting to a known maniac.

If it's not being enforced, then enforce it (assuming the underlying crime ought to be a crime).

...which brings us to the other half of my original question, just what underlying crimes are you concerned about?

[Swordsmyth]

If that's all your saying (they must remove illegal content within a reasonable time of discovery), I agree and, AFAIK, that's already the law.

If it's not being enforced, then enforce it (assuming the underlying crime ought to be a crime).

...which brings us to the other half of my original question, just what underlying crimes are you concerned about?
Calls for violence and slander/libel.

There may be others but I can't think of them right now.

[r3volution 3.0]

Calls for violence and slander/libel.

There may be others but I can't think of them right now.

Alright, so have the laws requiring them to take down such content enforced.

Now, why is it that you want some additional regulation of social media platforms, and what does any of this have to do with censorship?

[timosman]

Alright, so have the laws requiring them to take down such content enforced.

Now, why is it that you want some additional regulation of social media platforms, and what does any of this have to do with censorship?

Nurse! Please make sure this patient is comfortable. :tears:

[Swordsmyth]

Alright, so have the laws requiring them to take down such content enforced.

Now, why is it that you want some additional regulation of social media platforms, and what does any of this have to do with censorship?
Please point to where I called for new regulations.
I have called for them to lose their immunity when they behave as a publisher and I have called for them to be sued or prosecuted for false advertising and breach of contract but I haven't called for regulations.

[r3volution 3.0]

Please point to where I called for new regulations.

I have called for them to lose their immunity when they behave as a publisher and I have called for them to be sued or prosecuted for false advertising and breach of contract but I haven't called for regulations.

There are a lot of people roaming around making the same "teh evil corporations are gonna enslave us" claims that you've been making and calling for the feds to enforce some kind of "neutrality" regime on social media, break them up with anti-trust laws, or otherwise steal their property. If you're not in favor of such things, that's good.

As for liability for illegal content, I think we agree that they ought to be liable for failing to remove illegal content once discovered. As for breach of contract, however, there almost certainly hasn't been any, given the nature of the TOS. If you can find a platform that doesn't have something to the effect of "we can kick you off the platform for any reason," I'll be surprised. I recall going through at least one actual TOS in another thread (maybe paypal?) and finding just that.

[jmdrake]

Freedom of speech is about preventing the state from prosecuting you for speech.

It is not about you having the right to use other people's (i.e. Mailchimp's) property without their permission.



No, your customers have the right to receive whatever they are entitled to receive under their contracts with you or anyone else.

Neither they nor you have the right to foist any contract on an unwilling third party (i.e. Mailchimp).



You misspelled "exercise of property rights."



That remains to be seen; if it is, they'll lose business to other companies, or change their policy, or go out of business.

Either way, problem solved: no need for any government involvement.

...not that you proposed any, but that's where all of this is heading.



Hear Hear

Funny but I didn't see anyone say "Hey! Write your congresscritter and demand he/she do something about MailChimp!" For free market principles to work people have to share their bad experiences about companies. So now everyone reading this knows their'es a problem with Mailchimp. Cool. Don't use MailChimp. Got it. No need for a "property rights" debate among people who aren't even arguing against your position.

[Stratovarious]

they are in no way a public utility. they are much more like a private mailbox/shipping store in a strip mall. and their terms of use on their site makes it plain that they censor and limit who can use their service and for what content.

Go bake a cake.


They have the right then to only ship for Whites, or only ship for lgbt's , but at their whim ?

Or refuse lgbt etc....?


lmao, they are a public service, wtf , over ......?

[Working Poor]

Funny but I didn't see anyone say "Hey! Write your congresscritter and demand he/she do something about MailChimp!" For free market principles to work people have to share their bad experiences about companies. So now everyone reading this knows their'es a problem with Mailchimp. Cool. Don't use MailChimp. Got it. No need for a "property rights" debate among people who aren't even arguing against your position.

There ya go....

[TheCount]

Funny but I didn't see anyone say "Hey! Write your congresscritter and demand he/she do something about MailChimp!" For free market principles to work people have to share their bad experiences about companies. So now everyone reading this knows their'es a problem with Mailchimp. Cool. Don't use MailChimp. Got it. No need for a "property rights" debate among people who aren't even arguing against your position.

There were several people stating that Mailchimp should be regulated as a public utility.


Yeah, de facto public utilities.

We really need some sort of law. I guess I'm not a libertarian. Maybe I just understand that if we added this law, the country would go from, not at all free market to still not at all free market.

A few ideas about proposed laws.

1) If you start out as a normal non censoring company, then you become a near monopoly, you can't start censoring.

2) If you aren't explicitly political, no censorship.

4) Censorship is more acceptable when you're talking about a political website, or, an ideological website.

5) The phenomenon called "triggered" or "triggering" or anything like that, is a mental illness. We don't shape the world in order to make crazy people happy and comfortable. We treat crazy people so that they can function in the existing world with sane people.

6) Any websites that involve important, standard communications = like facebook, twitter, mailchimp, youtube = no censorship.

I'd like to see the Sherman Anti-Trust Act just rip everything apart, which would be separate from this law.

[Weston White]

Mailchimp (formerly capitalized as MailChimp until 2018) is a marketing automation platform and an email marketing service. The platform is a trading name of its operator, Rocket Science Group, an American company founded in 2001 by Ben Chestnut and Mark Armstrong with Dan Kurzius joining at a later date. Mailchimp began as a paid service and added a freemium option in 2009. Within a year its user base had grown from 85,000 to 450,000. By June 2014, it was sending over 10 billion emails per month on behalf of its users. In 2017, the company was gaining 14,000 new customers every day. The company is still owned by its cofounders and has never accepted venture capital funds.

In 2016, Mailchimp was ranked No. 7 on the Forbes Cloud 100 list. In February 2017, the company was named one of Fast Company's Most Innovative Companies of 2017. In August 2017, It was reported that, Mailchimp would be opening offices in Brooklyn and in Oakland, California.

On February 2019, Mailchimp acqui-hired the team behind LemonStand, a smaller competitor. Later in 2019 the company announced its annual revenue would reach $700 million. Mailchimp is going to become a full marketing platform aimed at smaller organizations.

Ben Chestnut (born 1973/1974) is an American billionaire Internet entrepreneur. He is the CEO and co-founder (with Dan Kurzius) of MailChimp, an email marketing company.

May or may not be Mark Armstrong (a tech guy from college): https://www.crunchbase.com/person/mark-armstrong#section-overview

Dan Kurzius (born 1971/1972) is an American billionaire businessman, the co-founder and chief customer officer of Mailchimp.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mailchimp#cite_note-7

https://www.inc.com/magazine/201802/mailchimp-company-of-the-year-2017.html

Alternative to Mailchimp (Ahhh I love the smell of competition in the morning!): https://sendgrid.com/marketing/mailchimp-alternative/?extProvId=5&extPu=49397-gaw&extLi=1746232220&sem_adg=65164319741&extCr=65164319741-340029469638&extSi=&extTg=&keyword=mail%20chimp&extAP=1t1&extMT=p&gclid=CjwKCAjwxrzoBRBBEiwAbtX1n5TPBNPPS-nuRRONjq0mWmU25ytjz5qLmtm0TqV__5Z9zunY4Kc4FhoC4lwQ AvD_BwE

[Weston White]

they are in no way a public utility. they are much more like a private mailbox/shipping store in a strip mall. and their terms of use on their site makes it plain that they censor and limit who can use their service and for what content.

That is all fine and dandy, well that is until you realize they have overtaken the market, becoming a monopoly, such is the case for many existing conglomerations that control the lion's share of varied markets.

...And then such a system as this becomes fully implemented and integrated throughout society and your service starts being declined by the very limited selection of consumer choices due to your personal habits and political affiliations or because of your family and friends, etc: https://www.businessinsider.com/china-social-credit-system-punishments-and-rewards-explained-2018-4

[specsaregood]

That is all fine and dandy, well that is until you realize they have overtaken the market, becoming a monopoly, such is the case for many existing conglomerations that control the lion's share of varied markets.

...And then such a system as this becomes fully implemented and integrated throughout society and your service starts being declined by the very limited selection of consumer choices due to your personal habits and political affiliations or because of your family and friends, etc: https://www.businessinsider.com/china-social-credit-system-punishments-and-rewards-explained-2018-4

They host a freaking SMTP server; yeah its a bit of a hassle but anybody can do the basics of what they do.

[oyarde]

Why haven't the offended chimps sued them for that offensive co name ?

[Weston White]

They host a freaking SMTP server; yeah its a bit of a hassle but anybody can do the basics of what they do.

I mean businesses in general, Walmart, CVS, Microsoft, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Blue Shield, PG&E, AT&T, Direct TV, W3C, ICANN, etc.

[TheCount]

The government has made it illegal to just go and kill the bad guys. The government is working with the bad guys. They're on the same team.

If the government is working with the bad guys, why do you think that more government involvement in the market is going to make things better?

[TheCount]

I mean businesses in general, Walmart, CVS, Microsoft, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Blue Shield, PG&E, AT&T, Direct TV, W3C, ICANN, etc.

Nationalize everything in the name of freedom and liberty!

[timosman]

Nationalize everything in the name of freedom and liberty!

Just don't let them fuck with the 1A. :happy:

[r3volution 3.0]

Funny but I didn't see anyone say "Hey! Write your congresscritter and demand he/she do something about MailChimp!" For free market principles to work people have to share their bad experiences about companies. So now everyone reading this knows their'es a problem with Mailchimp. Cool. Don't use MailChimp. Got it. No need for a "property rights" debate among people who aren't even arguing against your position.

For months people here have been calling for the feds to force tech companies to be "neutral" and/or break them up with anti-trust laws.

Did you read all of the posts in this thread? Here's one of several examples.


Yeah, de facto public utilities.

We really need some sort of law. I guess I'm not a libertarian. Maybe I just understand that if we added this law, the country would go from, not at all free market to still not at all free market.

A few ideas about proposed laws.

1) If you start out as a normal non censoring company, then you become a near monopoly, you can't start censoring.

2) If you aren't explicitly political, no censorship.

4) Censorship is more acceptable when you're talking about a political website, or, an ideological website.

5) The phenomenon called "triggered" or "triggering" or anything like that, is a mental illness. We don't shape the world in order to make crazy people happy and comfortable. We treat crazy people so that they can function in the existing world with sane people.

6) Any websites that involve important, standard communications = like facebook, twitter, mailchimp, youtube = no censorship.

I'd like to see the Sherman Anti-Trust Act just rip everything apart, which would be separate from this law.

And this has been a major national talking point among GOPers (watch any episode of Tucker Carlson, for example).

So, no, I'm not jousting at windmills, even if I was mistaken about SS being among those calling for these interventions.

[timosman]

For months people here have been calling for the feds to force tech companies to be "neutral" and/or break them up with anti-trust laws.

And this has been a major national talking point among GOPers (watch any episode of Tucker Carlson, for example).

So, no, I'm not jousting at windmills, even if I was mistaken about SS being among those calling for these interventions.

Moving goalposts again, Nostradamus? :tears:

[jmdrake]

Yeah, de facto public utilities.

We really need some sort of law. I guess I'm not a libertarian. Maybe I just understand that if we added this law, the country would go from, not at all free market to still not at all free market.

A few ideas about proposed laws.

1) If you start out as a normal non censoring company, then you become a near monopoly, you can't start censoring.

2) If you aren't explicitly political, no censorship.

4) Censorship is more acceptable when you're talking about a political website, or, an ideological website.

5) The phenomenon called "triggered" or "triggering" or anything like that, is a mental illness. We don't shape the world in order to make crazy people happy and comfortable. We treat crazy people so that they can function in the existing world with sane people.

6) Any websites that involve important, standard communications = like facebook, twitter, mailchimp, youtube = no censorship.

I'd like to see the Sherman Anti-Trust Act just rip everything apart, which would be separate from this law.


That is correct, they may be privately held but they are de facto public utilities.


At the very least they are now a publisher and not a platform.


For months people here have been calling for the feds to force tech companies to be "neutral" and/or break them up with anti-trust laws.

Did you read all of the posts in this thread? Here's one of several examples.



And this has been a major national talking point among GOPers (watch any episode of Tucker Carlson, for example).

So, no, I'm not jousting at windmills, even if I was mistaken about SS being among those calling for these interventions.

Okay. I stand corrected. Yes some people are calling for government interference in....an email service? Ummmm.....okay.

MailChimp isn't close to being a monopoly and it's impossible for a service like MailChimp to acquire monopoly status! This is not like Facebook or Twitter where the only way you can contact people you are only connected through Facebook or Twitter is on Facebook or Twitter. I know I am being redundant, but it's to make a point. There are a lot of open source alternatives to MailChimp.

Here. For those too lazy to DuckDuckGo it. (No need to keep feeding into the phony Google "monopoly".)

https://www.bettertechtips.com/linux/mailchimp-alternatives-open-source/

Nobody on your email list is going to care if you switch from MailChimp to some other service. They won't even notice unless you tell them. Now if MailChimp held on to your data that would be a problem. But if they turn over your email list so that you can upload it to another service or (gasp!) host the service yourself? No problem. You cannot be "deplatformed" by a company like MailChimp. If you lost your Gmail account, on the other hand, that could be a problem, but then again as long as you were allowed to take your data (your contact list and email archive), that shouldn't be a problem either. Tech companies should be able to hold onto your data. I know that put crap in their phony adherence contracts that allow them to get away with that crap but that is where government should step in. Your data is your "intellectual property." If I rent a hotel room from you and you, for whatever reason, decide to kick me out and contractually that's allowed then fine, I'll leave. But if you say "Yeah...but you can't take your clothes or laptop with you because they are on our property and they belong to us now due to a clause on page 50 of the hotel leasing agreement that we didn't highlight and we know that nobody ever reads because the whole thing is too damn long to read." Well in that case we have a problem.

[r3volution 3.0]

Okay. I stand corrected. Yes some people are calling for government interference in....an email service? Ummmm.....okay.

MailChimp isn't close to being a monopoly and it's impossible for a service like MailChimp to acquire monopoly status! This is not like Facebook or Twitter where the only way you can contact people you are only connected through Facebook or Twitter is on Facebook or Twitter. I know I am being redundant, but it's to make a point. There are a lot of open source alternatives to MailChimp.

Here. For those too lazy to DuckDuckGo it. (No need to keep feeding into the phony Google "monopoly".)

https://www.bettertechtips.com/linux/mailchimp-alternatives-open-source/

Nobody on your email list is going to care if you switch from MailChimp to some other service. They won't even notice unless you tell them. Now if MailChimp held on to your data that would be a problem. But if they turn over your email list so that you can upload it to another service or (gasp!) host the service yourself? No problem. You cannot be "deplatformed" by a company like MailChimp. If you lost your Gmail account, on the other hand, that could be a problem, but then again as long as you were allowed to take your data (your contact list and email archive), that shouldn't be a problem either.

Well said


Tech companies should be able to hold onto your data. I know that put crap in their phony adherence contracts that allow them to get away with that crap but that is where government should step in. Your data is your "intellectual property." If I rent a hotel room from you and you, for whatever reason, decide to kick me out and contractually that's allowed then fine, I'll leave. But if you say "Yeah...but you can't take your clothes or laptop with you because they are on our property and they belong to us now due to a clause on page 50 of the hotel leasing agreement that we didn't highlight and we know that nobody ever reads because the whole thing is too damn long to read." Well in that case we have a problem.

Is it?

Suppose I walk up to you on the street and say: "Hi, I'm r3v, my consumer preferences are such and such."

You go sell this information to an advertising company, without my permission.

I fail to see how you violated my property rights (intellectual or otherwise).

[Anti Federalist]

What a pointless argument.

Once the banks start seizing your assets and closing your accounts for holding views contrary to the current junta, this will look like child's play.

[r3volution 3.0]

Some general points on political discrimination by private enterprises:

1. It can be effective with state-sponsored monopolies, but then the solution is simple: remove state-sponsorship (i.e. not a market problem).

2. In a market, this can only be effective with natural monopolies, which are rare (neither social media nor banking, @Anti Federalist (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=3169), qualify).

3. If you think it's a problem that people have unequal influence over politics, that problem is much broader than politically biased social media, banks, grocery stores, payment processors, etc. How about...every single media venue? How about...the fact that people have unequal amounts of income with which to finance different candidates, parties, PACs, Think Tanks, schools, churches, and every other kind of organization that influences politics? To achieve a truly "level-playing field" would require a monstrous regulatory regime to regulate all of these civil organizations and their donors (or outright communism to make for equal incomes).

4. The underlying assumption of this "neutrality" movement, that the people only vote the wrong way because of biased media, etc, is false.

[Anti Federalist]

Some general points on political discrimination by private enterprises:

1. It can be effective with state-sponsored monopolies, but then the solution is simple: remove state-sponsorship (i.e. not a market problem).

2. In a market, this can only be effective with natural monopolies, which are rare (neither social media nor banking, @Anti Federalist (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member.php?u=3169), qualify).

I'm in favor of eliminating the state sponsored banking monopoly.

[r3volution 3.0]

I'm in favor of eliminating the state sponsored banking monopoly.

Good, so am I.

[Swordsmyth]

Is it?

Suppose I walk up to you on the street and say: "Hi, I'm r3v, my consumer preferences are such and such."

You go sell this information to an advertising company, without my permission.

I fail to see how you violated my property rights (intellectual or otherwise).
Did you stalk me and record everything I did without my permission?

[Swordsmyth]

Good, so am I.
Good but we may have to do something else to prevent our absolute destruction until we can accomplish that.
If we allow ourselves to be destroyed we will never get that done.

[r3volution 3.0]

Did you stalk me and record everything I did without my permission?

Here was the scenario I laid out:


Suppose I walk up to you on the street and say: "Hi, I'm r3v, my consumer preferences are such and such."

You go sell this information to an advertising company, without my permission.

I fail to see how you violated my property rights (intellectual or otherwise).

[Swordsmyth]

Here was the scenario I laid out:
And that isn't what is happening online.

[r3volution 3.0]

And that isn't what is happening online.

Okay, so you think what's happening is more like: "stalk[ing] me and record[ing] everything I did without my permission"?

And you want to know whether I think that violates your property rights?

I say no, it doesn't.

[Swordsmyth]

Okay, so you think what's happening is more like: "stalk[ing] me and record[ing] everything I did without my permission"?

And you want to know whether I think that violates your property rights?

I say no, it doesn't.
It certainly violates some kind of rights.

[r3volution 3.0]

It certainly violates some kind of rights.

How so?

[Swordsmyth]

How so?
People have a right to privacy.

[r3volution 3.0]

People have a right to privacy.

What does a "right to privacy" mean exactly, and why should people have it?

[Swordsmyth]

What does a "right to privacy" mean exactly, and why should people have it?
Maybe you would understand if somebody started stalking you and telling the whole world everything you do.

But you would probably play dumb anyway.

[r3volution 3.0]

Maybe you would understand if somebody started stalking you and telling the whole world everything you do.

But you would probably play dumb anyway.

So you're not going to answer?

[Anti Federalist]

What does a "right to privacy" mean exactly, and why should people have it?


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That includes quasi government entities like banks, AFAIC.

[Swordsmyth]

That includes quasi government entities like banks, AFAIC.
It applies to private corporations and individual just like my right to life does.

[r3volution 3.0]

That includes quasi government entities like banks, AFAIC.

The state can use gathered information to do things which violate your property rights.

Private enterprises cannot (Mailchimp has no torture dungeons in Cairo, AFAIK).

As for "quasi government entities," they obviously ought not exist - eliminate whatever regulations/subsidies make them quasi-governmental.

[Swordsmyth]

The state can use gathered information to do things which violate your property rights.

Private enterprises cannot (Mailchimp has no torture dungeons in Cairo, AFAIK).

As for "quasi government entities," they obviously ought not exist - eliminate whatever regulations/subsidies make them quasi-governmental.
There are many things a private entity can do with my information to violate my rights, tortuous interference in a contract or harassment being two examples.

[r3volution 3.0]

There are many things a private entity can do with my information to violate my rights, tortuous interference in a contract or harassment being two examples.

It doesn't follow that taking your information is itself a crime.

If I spy on you and figure out when you go to work, I can use that information to plan my burglary of your house.

The taking of the information isn't the crime; the burglary is.

[Swordsmyth]

It doesn't follow that taking your information is itself a crime.

If I spy on you and figure out when you go to work, I can use that information to plan my robbery of your house.

The taking of the information isn't the crime; the robbery is.
Stalking is a crime.
Incidental accumulation of data is not the same thing as an organized effort to follow you around and record everything you do with the intent to sell that information to others without your permission.

[r3volution 3.0]

Stalking is a crime

So is refusing to pay absurdly high, unjust taxes.

Explain to me why it ought to be a crime (you might begin by defining what exactly "stalking" is).


Incidental accumulation of data is not the same thing as an organized effort to follow you around and record everything you do with the intent to sell that information to others without your permission.

No, it's not, but there's no reason for either to be illegal in themselves.

[Swordsmyth]

So is refusing to pay absurdly high, unjust taxes.

Explain to me why it ought to be a crime (you might begin by defining what exactly "stalking" is).



No, it's not, but there's no reason for either to be illegal in themselves.
Stalking violates the basic human right to privacy.
If you are incapable of understanding that right I can't do anything for you, just as if you couldn't understand the right to life or the right to property.
The best I can do is to say that your "data" is your property and that while you may "shed" some of it randomly any attempt to extract it from you without your permission is theft.

[r3volution 3.0]

Stalking violates the basic human right to privacy.

If you are incapable of understanding that right I can't do anything for you, just as if you couldn't understand the right to life or the right to property.

The best I can do is to say that your "data" is your property and that while you may "shed" some of it randomly any attempt to extract it from you without your permission is theft.

The purpose of property is to ration the use of scarce resources.

If there's 1 apple, and you and I both want it, we need a rule to determine who gets to eat it (the only alternative being a fight).

This does not apply to data.

So, why should data be treated as property?

[Swordsmyth]

The purpose of property is to ration the use of scarce resources.

If there's 1 apple, and you and I both want it, we need a rule to determine who gets to eat it (the only alternative being a fight).

This does not apply to data.

So, why should data be treated as property?
The purpose of property is to protect you from harm, your data gives people power over you and you have a right to retain that power.

[r3volution 3.0]

The purpose of property is to protect you from harm, your data gives people power over you and you have a right to retain that power.

I don't know if you're very familiar with the historical development of what is now called "liberalism," but you're following right along.

Step 1: abandon property rights and start taking about fuzzy concepts like "power" and ""autonomy"

Step 2: justify all kinds of property rights violations in the name of those fuzzy concepts

Step 3: call this the new freedom, contra that bad old freedom based on property rights....

Anyway, can you think of any other interactions which give one person "power" over another?

Or, in other words, try to define "power" as you're using it.

[Swordsmyth]

I don't know if you're very familiar with the historical development of what is now called "liberalism," but you're following right along.

Step 1: abandon property rights and start taking about fuzzy concepts like "power" and ""autonomy"

Step 2: justify all kinds of property rights violations in the name of those fuzzy concepts

Step 3: call this the new freedom, contra that bad old freedom based on property rights....

Anyway, can you think of any other interactions which give one person "power" over another?

Or, in other words, try to define "power" as you're using it.
I don't have to define "power" I only need to show that ownership of your data is important because of it.
Self defense isn't "property" and yet it is a right that is required to preserve your property, the same thing applies to privacy.

[r3volution 3.0]

I don't have to define "power."

Suppose A has more money than B.

Does this give him power over B?

[Swordsmyth]

Suppose A has more money than B.

Does this give him power over B?
Yes but unless he took the money from B it makes no difference, taking my data by following me around is like stealing my money.

[r3volution 3.0]

Yes but unless he took the money from B it makes no difference, taking my data by following me around is like stealing my money.

In neither case (A snooping on B, nor A making more money than B) is A violating B's property rights.

In both cases, A gains some kind of "power" in some vague sense over B.

Therefore, on your reasoning, it should be illegal for A make more money than B, as you claim it should be illegal for A to snoop on B.

Now, you say, "no, it's different, because when A snoops on B, he's taking his property."

But that's the very point in contention. You can't assume that data is property in order to prove that it is, can you?

[Swordsmyth]

In neither case (A snooping on B, nor A making more money than B) is A violating B's property rights.

In both cases, A gains some kind of "power" in some vague sense over B.

Therefore, on your reasoning, it should be illegal for A make more money than B, as you claim it should be illegal for A to snoop on B.

Now, you say, "no, it's different, because when A snoops on B, he's taking his property."

But that's the very point in contention. You can't assume that data is property in order to prove that it is, can you?
A had no power over B before he stalked him and B was free of A, after the stalking A has power over B and it wasn't gained by doing neutral work to become rich, it was gained by an attack on B's privacy.

B used to have privacy and now he doesn't because A stole it.

[r3volution 3.0]

A had no power over B before he stalked him and B was free of A, after the stalking A has power over B and it wasn't gained by doing neutral work to become rich, it was gained by an attack on B's privacy.

B used to have privacy and now he doesn't because A stole it.

Again, you're assuming what you're trying to prove (namely, that this snooping is a bad thing, not "neutral," an "attack").

Some leftist could just as well make a fuzzy claim about how A taking B's job is "not neutral," "an attack."

[Swordsmyth]

Again, you're assuming what you're trying to prove (namely, that this snooping is a bad thing, not "neutral," an "attack").

Some leftist could just as well make a fuzzy claim about how A taking B's job is "not neutral," "an attack."
B's job belonged to his employer not to B.
His privacy belonged to him.

[r3volution 3.0]

B's job belonged to his employer not to B.
His privacy belonged to him.

Again, begging the question...

If you're trying to demonstrate that A "owns" information about himself, assuming that he does doesn't get you anywhere.

How would you respond to a leftist who insisted that B "owns" his job?

[Swordsmyth]

Again, begging the question...

If you're trying to demonstrate that A "owns" information about himself, assuming that he does doesn't get you anywhere.

How would you respond to a leftist who insisted that B "owns" his job?
The boss created the job, I create my data.

[r3volution 3.0]

The boss created the job, I create my data.

Ah, a new fuzzy concept: "creation."

:rolleyes:

The data which A has exists in his own skull, and never existed anywhere else, right?

He didn't crack open B's skull and scoop something out, did he?

[Swordsmyth]

Ah, a new fuzzy concept: "creation."

:rolleyes:

The data which A has exists in his own skull, and never existed anywhere else, right?

He didn't crack open B's skull and scoop something out, did he?
The data is my actions, no actions means no data.

[r3volution 3.0]

The data is my actions, no actions means no data.

If I don't write this post, you won't write a response; therefore, I created your response; therefore, I own it?

[Swordsmyth]

If I don't write this post, you won't write a response; therefore, I created your response; therefore, I own it?
My response isn't your data, your post is your data.

[r3volution 3.0]

My response isn't your data, your post is your data.

You said:


no actions means no data

Likewise, no post by me means no response by you.

And then of course, to carry on brilliant idea, I suppose all our posts are owned by Bryan, or Al Gore, or Westinghouse.

...I mean, if causing something means owning it, that's the conclusion, no?

[Swordsmyth]

You said:



Likewise, no post by me means no response by you.

And then of course, to carry on brilliant idea, I suppose all our posts are owned by Bryan, or Al Gore, or Westinghouse.

...I mean, if causing something means owning it, that's the conclusion, no?
I could post a million posts without you ever posting and I might never respond to your post.
There is a difference between "causing" and "creating", I create my data by acting and therefor I own it.

[r3volution 3.0]

I could post a million posts without you ever posting and I might never respond to your post.

Sure, but if you do respond, I own that response (by your logic) because my post was a necessary condition for your response.

...i.e. you can't respond to a post I didn't make.

Likewise, B's action is a necessary condition for A to gain information about those actions, therefore B owns the information.

If you don't like the posting example, how about this:
--someone sold B food, without which he would have died and been unable to take any action, therefore that person owns the data


There is a difference between "causing" and "creating", I create my data by acting and therefor I own it.

You said that B created the data about his actions BECAUSE, without his action, there could be no data.

[Swordsmyth]

Sure, but if you do respond, I own that response (by your logic) because my post was a necessary condition for your response.

...i.e. you can't respond to a post I didn't make.

Likewise, B's action is a necessary condition for A to gain information about those actions, therefore B owns the information.

If you don't like the posting example, how about this:
--someone sold B food, without which he would have died and been unable to take any action, therefore that person owns the data



You said that B created the data about his actions BECAUSE, without his action, there could be no data.
You can't extend it out to an infinite number of connected occurrences, you only own what you create
I didn't say "because", I gave the fact that without the actions there would be no data as evidence beyond the obvious, we all know that my actions are something I created and you are just playing word games.

[r3volution 3.0]

You can't extend it out to an infinite number of connected occurrences, you only own what you create

The problem gets more silly the more causal steps back you go, but the root of the problem is that you're using causation at all.

"I acted, you can't have gotten the data without me acting, therefore I own the data."

"I sold you a chicken, you couldn't have traded the chicken for a pig without me selling you the chicken, therefore I own the pig."

Both are absurd, both follow your logic.


I didn't say "because", I gave the fact that without the actions there would be no data as evidence beyond the obvious

Evidence that the actor owns the data, right?


we all know that my actions are something I created and you are just playing word games.

LOL, right, I'm playing word games.

You just invented a whole new (absurd) theory of property on the fly to rationalize your position.

If you want to insist on a "right to privacy," you'd do better to just state it as a principle, acknowledge that it violates property rights, and leave it there, rather than trying to redefine the whole concept of property rights in such a way that you can claim this "right to privacy" is really a property right. This is much like what you've attempted (equally unsuccessfully) to do with national sovereignty: redefining property rights to make things which are clearly property rights violations (restricting immigration) sound like expressions of property rights (this mystical "territorial rights" mumbo jumbo).

[Swordsmyth]

The problem gets more silly the more causal steps back you go, but the root of the problem is that you're using causation at all.

"I acted, you can't have gotten the data without me acting, therefore I own the data."

"I sold you a chicken, you couldn't have traded the chicken for a pig without me selling you the chicken, therefore I own the pig."

Both are absurd, both follow your logic.
No, you are playing stupid games again.
I hatched a chicken, I didn't trade it to you, so if you trade it for a pig I do own the pig.




Evidence that the actor owns the data, right?
Evidence, not the root cause.
If the data could have existed without their action the claim to ownership would be much weaker.

[r3volution 3.0]

If the data could have existed without their action the claim to ownership would be much weaker.

Weaker, but still there?

[jmdrake]

Well said



Is it?

Suppose I walk up to you on the street and say: "Hi, I'm r3v, my consumer preferences are such and such."

You go sell this information to an advertising company, without my permission.

I fail to see how you violated my property rights (intellectual or otherwise).

I meant to say "Tech companies should NOT be able to hold onto your data."

That said, I'm no so much bothered by the re-sale of my information (though it should be with permission) as I am with the fact that it's not always easy to "take my ball and go home" if I want to do so. For example, if you've stored all of your photos on Instagram and they decide to "de-platform" you, then you just lose everything. Also, understand I'm not saying the government should step in. Rather I am saying it's time for individuals to demand a different set of expectations from tech companies.

But back to your "sell my information" example. If enough people chose cloud platforms that in their contracts guaranteed not to sell information then the companies that do sell information would ultimately have to comply or go out of business. Getting people to actually understand and demand such rights is a challenge though.

[jmdrake]

Again, begging the question...

If you're trying to demonstrate that A "owns" information about himself, assuming that he does doesn't get you anywhere.

How would you respond to a leftist who insisted that B "owns" his job?

That cuts both ways. There are aspects of an employee's "job" that he absolutely owns such as his acquired skills, training, licenses etc. I live in a "right to work" state which means that there is no forced unionization (employers love that), but non-compete agreements are disfavored (some employers HATE that part).

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

No this is how it works, private businesses can discriminate against someone unless it's a leftist, then they get sued for discrimination to the point they have to close down their business.

[UWDude]

No this is how it works, private businesses can discriminate against someone unless it's a leftist, then they get sued for discrimination to the point they have to close down their business.

Also, they are private businesses, although they are publicly traded on the stock market, along with all the protections and guarantees that affords.

[r3volution 3.0]

I'm not saying the government should step in.

Then we agree.


Rather I am saying it's time for individuals to demand a different set of expectations from tech companies.

Well, that's up to them.

Personally, I won't be using social media regardless of whether any of these issues are resolved.


There are aspects of an employee's "job" that he absolutely owns such as his acquired skills, training...

Property rights pertain only to physical things. It doesn't make sense to talk about owning a skill (the ability to take an action) or training (a past event), unless this is a euphemism for ownership of some physical thing (like that portion of the employer's cash which the employee intends to steal through some farcical legal action should the employer "steal" his job/skills/training by firing him). Incidentally, it's the same with labor; a laborer does not own his labor (this statement doesn't make sense), he owns whatever physical stuff he gets in exchange for it.

[jmdrake]

Then we agree.



Well, that's up to them.

Personally, I won't be using social media regardless of whether any of these issues are resolved.



Property rights pertain only to physical things. It doesn't make sense to talk about owning a skill (the ability to take an action) or training (a past event), unless this is a euphemism for ownership of some physical thing (like that portion of the employer's cash which the employee intends to steal through some farcical legal action should the employer "steal" his job/skills/training by firing him). Incidentally, it's the same with labor; a laborer does not own his labor (this statement doesn't make sense), he owns whatever physical stuff he gets in exchange for it.

You snipped out part of what I wrote so that you didn't have to deal with the facts of what I am saying. I will re-post to give you a change to be intellectually honest this time.

That cuts both ways. There are aspects of an employee's "job" that he absolutely owns such as his acquired skills, training, licenses etc. I live in a "right to work" state which means that there is no forced unionization (employers love that), but non-compete agreements are disfavored (some employers HATE that part).

Non-compete agreements are a real thing, whether you wish to address it or not. Employers (some) try to prevent employees who quit or are fired from using their training, skills, labor, etc in the service of someone else. Most states only allow that in very limited circumstances.

[r3volution 3.0]

You snipped out part of what I wrote so that you didn't have to deal with the facts of what I am saying

I stopped reading at this point.

You're mistaken; there isn't anything that you understand that I don't.

...and I'm offended that you tell me that I didn't consider what you had to say.

Try again.

[jmdrake]

I stopped reading at this point.

You're mistaken; there isn't anything that you understand that I don't.

...and I'm offended that you tell me that I didn't consider what you had to say.

Try again.

Be offended all you want. But you aren't at all being logical at this point.