• ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    That’s supremely childish understanding of the relationship between the government and private entities. The part that you’re failing to grasp in your “analysis” is that the government represents the interests of the class that holds power in society. Under capitalism, the government represents large capitalists, i.e. the very same people who own the media and platforms such as Google that do the censorship. Private interests that also happen to run your government are simply bypassing the middle man when doing the censorship.

    It’s incredible that grown ass adult would have trouble understanding such basic things.

    • putoelquelolea@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Why are you so angry? And why don’t you understand that the only rights you can claim protection from, are the ones related to government actions? Whether or not you agree with the idea of government as a way to come to terms with the fundamental dichotomies of the other. That is, Johnny’s mom won’t force Johnny to play with you if Johnny doesn’t want to.

      In this analogy, Johnny’s mom represents capitalist opression bypassing in counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor

      • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        I’m not angry at all, I’m just baffled that somebody could have such a poor understanding of the relationship between the government, the ruling class, and censorship. Again, government is not an independent entity that exists on its own. It’s part of society and it represents the interests of people who hold power in society. In a capitalist society, the government represents the capitalists, and there’s no difference between censorship being done by the government or by capitalists themselves.

        • putoelquelolea@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Let’s suppose for sake of argument, that you would like to appeal to a benevolent, anarcho-socialist government about Google’s actions. You would not be covered by freedom of speech in that instance either. Or be a victim of censorship

          • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            I don’t know what an anarcho-socilaist government is, but under a regular socialist government, Google would be owned by the workers and run as a cooperative. However, more importantly the government would represent the working majority as opposed to a small capital owning class. There is no inherent problem with censorship, every society censors ideas that it finds harmful. The question is who decides on what is censored and whether there’s accountability in the process.

            • putoelquelolea@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              Arguing about what type of government best represents what groups of people does not resolve the basic conflict.

              Google has a certain philosophy. You may - or may not - agree with that philosophy, but they have a right to have it.

              Google also has the right to refuse to do business with other companies that it deems incompatible with its philosophy. You may - or may not - agree that a certain company’s philosophy is incompatible with Google’s, but each of those companies is free to decide if they do or do not wish to do business with the other.

              Nakedcapitalism is also free to decide if they would like meet Google somewhere in the middle or tell them to pound sand.

              The idea that you can force two companies to play nicely together when they clearly don’t want to, is not a socialist concept. It is an authoritarian concept

              • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                8 months ago

                It literally does resolve the basic conflict which is, once again, which class holds power in society. Google has a certain philosophy because it’s a product of a social-economic system that birthed it. A company like google would not exist in a socialist society because the system works differently.

                If you don’t understand the problem with the fact that private company that acts as a gatekeeper of the internet gets to decide what content people are able to see, then there’s really no point having further conversation. The fact that you worked in AuThoRiTariAn into this is really just the cherry on top. 😂

                • putoelquelolea@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  In a world where Google is a cooperative representing a certian group of proletarians, and nakedcapitalism is a cooperative representing another group of proletarians, would you force them to do business together if one of them were opposed to the idea?

                  • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    If Google was a cooperative that acted as a gatekeeper for the internet, and it was censoring people’s access to information based on its profit incentive. Then yes, I would absolutely want Google to be forced to provide unfiltered access to search. It’s pretty incredible that anybody would want it to work otherwise frankly.