On Tuesday, May 06, 2003 8:00 PM, Declan McCullagh wrote:
On Sat, May 03, 2003 at 09:00:08PM -0700, Andy Lopata wrote:
Why is this restriction on speech and debate any less insidious than statist control? Why is capitalist self-censorship better than state-controlled explicit censorship?
If a sufficiently repressive government doesn't like what you say, you end up with your ears lopped off, or you're dead and your family is tortured.
If the corporations didn't have the government to do their dirty work for them, they'd do it themselves - like the historical terrorizing and killing of labor organizers. But I guess commies deserve it?
If the Corporate Media Barons don't like what you say, you get to keep saying it.
If you don't mind losing your job: http://www.nandotimes.com/entertainment/story/879662p-6132229c.html
Hope that helps put things in perspective.
No, it doesn't really help put things in perspective. In a time where it has never been more apparent that the interests of the capitalist powers and the government are very much the same - e.g. the oil industry-controlled/owned gov't invades a sovereign nation for control of more oil, and further consolidation and control of global resources - I do *not* understand the argument that the government is bad, but the forces behind that gov't action, and profits made from that gov't action, are good. My point is only that control of information helps control outcomes that effect everyone. Entrenched corporate powers have a vested interest in controlling information (as do the politicians they own in D.C.) so that decisions regarding technology, etc. benefit them. Crypto and other technologies accessible to all threatens this control - both corporate and gov't. I just don't get the market-will-fix-everything argument. Much of the Internet is based on public resources and many of which (e.g. open protocols) are valuable because they are *not* commodified. Newbie flame-baiter, Andy Lopata