[ExI] bee having fun

[spike at rainier66.com]

...> On Behalf Of BillK via extropy-chat
Subject: Re: [ExI] bee having fun

On Sat, 30 Apr 2022 at 14:57, William Flynn Wallace via extropy-chat
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
> My legal team has disputed the use of 'right' to refer to using the
internet, or for that matter, highways.
> Oh I wanted to fly a plane so badly.  Two problems:  deaf in one ear and
too tall (though not too tall now I think).
> Yes, I know about DARPA. Even me.  I recently read that many countries are
trying to imitate it.
>
> And Good Morning to you!  We are having beautiful days here - a dry 
> spell after much rain.  How are you on gardening?  Flowers and such?  
> love  from roz and bill 
> _______________________________________________


>...Ooooh!   You ask about Spike's flowers??
In the middle of California's severe drought???
Even his cacti are wilting!   :)


BillK
_______________________________________________


Note: if you are short of time, read and ponder only the last paragraph thx.
s

BillK, the drought notion is exaggerated intentionally in order to pressure
politicians to allow the Sacramento Valley Water District to construct a dam
to create a huge new reservoir north and west of Colusa California, which is
politically a very touchy subject around here.  Given half an invitation, I
will freely share my views on that.  Freely.  Cheerfully.   Aaaaand... since
that project was approved, we know where this is going.  I will freely
cheerfully share my views on that too, given half an invitation, or perhaps
a quarter of one, cheerfully, freely.

Billw's comment on the internet is of critical importance.  Most of us will
agree that everyone has the right to use the internet.  I don't know of
anyone banned from using it, even prisoners if they have a computer and can
get a connection inside the slammer (not sure how that works (could they get
a hot spot in there and use a phone?))  In principle, no one can be banned
from the internet.

However... one can be banned from using Twitter.

OK then.  Twitter is a private company (well technically ja it is.)  So they
have the legal right to ban a particular person (and they do.)  If a person
breaks their rules often enough, that person is banned.  In extreme cases
that person is banned for life.  OK we get that.

But on Twitter, a person can be theoretically banned even if they didn't
actually break the rules.  A person can be proactively banned based on what
the Twitterers fear she is going to post there if allowed to post there.
Elon Musk was banned from Twitter proactively by the head of the Twitter
engineering group.

OK then.  That is legal.  Is it moral?

If a particular person can be banned from Twitter, not because of what she
actually did but because of who she is and what she might do, then it would
be easy to ban that person from the other mainstream media based on her
being banned on Twitter.  (Ja?)  This creates a defacto banning from
meaningful internet use.  I would agree with those who argue that this is
the functional equivalent to violating a person's human right to free
speech.

spike