“I've argued in the past, and still believe, that the the utility of PA requirements on private businesses has long expired, that they're now just cudgels for the cynical, the self-serving, and bottom-dwelling serial-suers, and that organic and evolutionary forces would better challenge and remedy those who'd discriminate. In other words, it’s time to take the next step toward liberty and end those requirements.“
Peter, thank you as always for the thoughtful and multifaceted approach.
We’ve exchanged on this topic before.
As an original designer of the chat rooms, I still feel the current asocial media has reached ‘utility status’.
I’ve been in the position of having to curate rooms for 10000s of users On a free venue.
The one item that remains pivotal, Recourse.
Large or small any site MUST allow the user recourse to a block or filter. Sadly these companies can’t get beyond self-interest blindness. I do loathe the idea of an external agency, perhaps better if it’s an industry supported one .vs. a govt one.
But an auditable trail with all its revelations for site and user would allow a history to evolve.
Market forces have often included such devices, given the current abuse by big tech, and emerging laws this would give documentation to any recourse.
The libertarian in me isn't sold on the "utility" argument, because the remedy applied to utilities isn't very libertarian. Yes, there is an obvious interest in managing the "footprint" of the infrastructure, given that it traverses public spaces, but the regulated monopoly model - that has only recently been partially addressed via separation of supply and delivery in some markets - is still a whole lot more government than is strictly needed.
I think Big Tech has been feeling rather invincible, being buddies with the Democrats and figuring they could keep their pals in power, and their size makes them prey to the "power corrupts" truism that extends beyond government. I still fear regulatory capture more than anything else, and there's ample history of such in other heavily regulated industries (see: telephones before the Ma Bell breakup, air and rail travel before Carter... and beer before Carter, for that matter).
As tech evolves, we might end up seeing market-force disruptions taking these giants down, so a bureaucracy-based remedy would become an impediment rather than a solution. This is why I like the idea of a PA-based remedy - where fines and lawsuits for impeded access rather than rules makers and watchdogs are the regulating force - over a government watchdog.
As I noted, still chewing on it. Comments and discussion are ALWAYS appreciated - thank you.
As a model i also remember (years back) when the IRS was forced out into the public court system where it could not as easily beat the taxpayer about head/shoulders.
Note that my concern is to create an auditable recourse for those being maligned by BigTech, as they control both transport and content their invincibility is probably more insidious then the TPC.
In the days pre-Judge Greene when TPC (aka Bell Telephone) only controlled transport it was bad, but that currently BigTech offers the only show in town, controls where you sit, and moderates your right to speak, all should see this behaviors breadth and history, if one might say a list of abuses and usurpations.
Admittedly all systems and services need adjusting, as does the adjusting need adjusting. I think we are past the tipping point of abuse, and if the rebound causes a major reduction in asocial media scope and reach, its likely time for its demise.
Many of us never thought its roots would make it past a year, perhaps its long overdue to have another pointless reason to keep our faces stuck in the Nu-boobtoob lost to history.
Their ubiquity and power are undeniable, but the mighty do fall from time to time. The circuit split should open the door to SCOTUS hearing the case - and they're smart enough to manage the tightrope, I'd say.
There is a libertarian argument that a private business has the right to discriminate and that the competitive free market will punish companies that turn away paying customers and qualified job applicants for no good reason. But, as you say, the “organic” option is not always viable. As unfair as it would be to label this view as “racist”, we can’t deny that it would be embraced by racists, putting libertarians in bad company and preventing any kind of rational discussion. This comes under the heading of “pick your battles”.
Arguing against PA is mostly Quixotic, but then again, so is much of what libertarians do. It's even more so in the current hyper-woke climate, where bigotries are imagined out of thin air and where sneezing the wrong way can get you called a racist.
But, it is necessary to hold onto principles, so I will continue to criticize PA as the illiberal intrusion on personal autonomy that it is.
I've suggested that the Founding Fathers missed one vital right in their crafting of the Constitution and BoR: freedom of association. While such a protection would inevitably be used by racists to discriminate, it would also prove an incredibly powerful tool to get government off our backs in countless other ways, including minimum wage laws and other employer mandates, prohibitions against purchasing things like raw milk and young cheese made from it, and so on.
We advocate free speech rights even for overt racists, so it'd be nothing new to say "we hate that they discriminate, but it's their right." And, always keep in mind that Jim Crow *precluded* integration by the willing.
“I've argued in the past, and still believe, that the the utility of PA requirements on private businesses has long expired, that they're now just cudgels for the cynical, the self-serving, and bottom-dwelling serial-suers, and that organic and evolutionary forces would better challenge and remedy those who'd discriminate. In other words, it’s time to take the next step toward liberty and end those requirements.“
Peter, thank you as always for the thoughtful and multifaceted approach.
We’ve exchanged on this topic before.
As an original designer of the chat rooms, I still feel the current asocial media has reached ‘utility status’.
I’ve been in the position of having to curate rooms for 10000s of users On a free venue.
The one item that remains pivotal, Recourse.
Large or small any site MUST allow the user recourse to a block or filter. Sadly these companies can’t get beyond self-interest blindness. I do loathe the idea of an external agency, perhaps better if it’s an industry supported one .vs. a govt one.
But an auditable trail with all its revelations for site and user would allow a history to evolve.
Market forces have often included such devices, given the current abuse by big tech, and emerging laws this would give documentation to any recourse.
…respectfully
The libertarian in me isn't sold on the "utility" argument, because the remedy applied to utilities isn't very libertarian. Yes, there is an obvious interest in managing the "footprint" of the infrastructure, given that it traverses public spaces, but the regulated monopoly model - that has only recently been partially addressed via separation of supply and delivery in some markets - is still a whole lot more government than is strictly needed.
I think Big Tech has been feeling rather invincible, being buddies with the Democrats and figuring they could keep their pals in power, and their size makes them prey to the "power corrupts" truism that extends beyond government. I still fear regulatory capture more than anything else, and there's ample history of such in other heavily regulated industries (see: telephones before the Ma Bell breakup, air and rail travel before Carter... and beer before Carter, for that matter).
As tech evolves, we might end up seeing market-force disruptions taking these giants down, so a bureaucracy-based remedy would become an impediment rather than a solution. This is why I like the idea of a PA-based remedy - where fines and lawsuits for impeded access rather than rules makers and watchdogs are the regulating force - over a government watchdog.
As I noted, still chewing on it. Comments and discussion are ALWAYS appreciated - thank you.
A collection of agreements on points, assuredly.
As a model i also remember (years back) when the IRS was forced out into the public court system where it could not as easily beat the taxpayer about head/shoulders.
Note that my concern is to create an auditable recourse for those being maligned by BigTech, as they control both transport and content their invincibility is probably more insidious then the TPC.
In the days pre-Judge Greene when TPC (aka Bell Telephone) only controlled transport it was bad, but that currently BigTech offers the only show in town, controls where you sit, and moderates your right to speak, all should see this behaviors breadth and history, if one might say a list of abuses and usurpations.
Admittedly all systems and services need adjusting, as does the adjusting need adjusting. I think we are past the tipping point of abuse, and if the rebound causes a major reduction in asocial media scope and reach, its likely time for its demise.
Many of us never thought its roots would make it past a year, perhaps its long overdue to have another pointless reason to keep our faces stuck in the Nu-boobtoob lost to history.
but... thanks again for the discussion.
Their ubiquity and power are undeniable, but the mighty do fall from time to time. The circuit split should open the door to SCOTUS hearing the case - and they're smart enough to manage the tightrope, I'd say.
From you lips to Gods ear ;-)
There is a libertarian argument that a private business has the right to discriminate and that the competitive free market will punish companies that turn away paying customers and qualified job applicants for no good reason. But, as you say, the “organic” option is not always viable. As unfair as it would be to label this view as “racist”, we can’t deny that it would be embraced by racists, putting libertarians in bad company and preventing any kind of rational discussion. This comes under the heading of “pick your battles”.
Arguing against PA is mostly Quixotic, but then again, so is much of what libertarians do. It's even more so in the current hyper-woke climate, where bigotries are imagined out of thin air and where sneezing the wrong way can get you called a racist.
But, it is necessary to hold onto principles, so I will continue to criticize PA as the illiberal intrusion on personal autonomy that it is.
I've suggested that the Founding Fathers missed one vital right in their crafting of the Constitution and BoR: freedom of association. While such a protection would inevitably be used by racists to discriminate, it would also prove an incredibly powerful tool to get government off our backs in countless other ways, including minimum wage laws and other employer mandates, prohibitions against purchasing things like raw milk and young cheese made from it, and so on.
We advocate free speech rights even for overt racists, so it'd be nothing new to say "we hate that they discriminate, but it's their right." And, always keep in mind that Jim Crow *precluded* integration by the willing.