Commentators censored

[hrothgar]

I have a friend who owns a Cellphone gaming company called "Unplugged".

About a year ago we actually looked in to whether or not it would be possible to do a version of BBO for cell phones. We decided that it wouldn't work: The main problem was one of demographics: People playing games on cell phones are TYPICALLY killing 2-3 minutes sitting on a bus or waiting for a movie to start. The usage pattern really didn't seem to match a game like bridge.

 

I was convinced (and still am) that Bridge Master might be a good fit for cell phones. Short discrete problems seemed like a no-brainer. Unfortunately, we couldn't get the GUI to look decent. Showing the "right" way to play hands was especially problematic.

[hrothgar]

Excuse me, Richard, but what has this political manifesto to do with this thread? I thought this was a bridge forum.

Its called an analogy.

People use them for the purpose of illustration.

[pclayton]

I was wondering when the Left would insert itself into this argument.

 

Pure and simple, BBO is a business enterprise of Fred, Sheri and Uday and whomever else has invested capital. It doesn't owe 'anybody' 'anything'. It has no obligations to the bridge community, much less to social causes and being 'responsible'. It does not receive funding from government sources and any revenue it may or may not get from sponsoring organizations is 100% earned. If you don't like the content, you are free to turn it off (not sign on).

 

People like free bridge. BBO provides great content in exchange for the opportunity to advertise its wares and make a buck. It’s a fair exchange all around.

 

Who knows what Fred's incentive is for providing vugraph? Personally, I would hope he does it for the sole reason of generating interest in BBO and to ultimately make BBO a more profitable enterprise.

 

BBO doesn't have to justify its rules regarding the content that its commentators provide. I commentate occasionally and I think it’s a huge privilege. If a yellow asked me not to mention OKB or Swan, I would gladly comply (although that didn't happen during the BB sessions I did). If I didn't comply (for whatever my reason) I would not complain about free speech if I were asked not to commentate anymore and have the privilege (there’s that word again) to commentate.

 

Free speech doesn't apply. BBO is strictly a private enterprise. While I suppose the 'internet' and the pathways it runs over (not only public utilities but also "airspace" in the case of wireless) are all 'public' entities, BBO is a private enterprise. It is membership based, and as some of us have seen, membership is a 'right', not a 'privilege.

 

Uday and Fred are being accommodating to those who complain about censorship. Personally, I'd tell them all to stick it.

[Guest Jlall]

Who knows what Fred's incentive is for providing vugraph? Personally, I would hope he does it for the sole reason of generating interest in BBO and to ultimately make BBO a more profitable enterprise.

I would guess it is for the good of the game of bridge as it doesn't seem like the smartest business move. This may be naive, but knowing Fred I think it is a good guess.

[luke warm]

I feel that my bridgehome is BBO, thanks to you who made it to such a place!!♥♥♥

Caren

you're welcome :lol:

[DrTodd13]

The Internet is actually an almost entirely private institution. Your ISP should be able to dictate whatever terms they like for you to use their service. BBO is an entirely private

organization and as such should be able to set all of its own rules. Membership on BBO is a privilege granted by Fred, not a "right." You never have a "right" to use or take anything belonging to someone else. Personally, I think the vast majority of people have deluded themselves into believing that they believe this to be true. It is true but people don't understand the ramifications of this believe and they aren't willing to change their positions so that their personal philosophy is consistent. If you really believe in freedom and property then you have to believe that people have a right to do things that you don't like so long as they don't hurt anyone else. Fred would be within his rights if he banned the French or women from BBO. He would be an ass if he did such a thing but he still has the right to do it. The rest of us have a right to express our agreement/disagreement by either continuing to use BBO or not.

 

I've made a pretty long journey from defacto Democrat, to Republican, to Libertarian to Anarcho-Capitalist driven by belief that it is wrong to initiate the use of force against anyone. Many people will say they believe that but one consequence of this belief is that all taxes are immoral because they ultimately derive from using guns to force people to pay if they refuse. <rant temporarily off my chest>

 

My point is that some of us believe in private property so of course we'll say Fred can do whatever he wants. Others believe ultimately that individuals have no rights and that "the good of society" is the ultimate goal and those people will use force to prevent a minority from offending a majority.

[luke warm]

i philosophically fall on the side of private property rights... in general i believe that a free market will, eventually, arrive at the right answer

 

on the monopoly question, imo the whole concept has a bad image... monopolies in and of themselves aren't inherently evil... i'm speaking of free market monopolies, gov't monopolies are almost wholly evil.. anyway that's my story and i'm sticking to it

[pclayton]

Well lets not mix the economic with the political here.

 

Maybe the gnome can check in on this, but I don't how BBO could ever be considered a monopoly, as a monopoly not only has limited (or none) competition, but there are also barriers to competition (not the case - an aspiring programmer could set up his own site) or that demand will remain constant, even if prices are raised or lowered (also not the case - its free (duh)).

[luke warm]

that's true phil, but just because it's free now doesn't mean it will be forever... as far as philosophy goes, there isn't any difference between the economic and political imo... it would be hard for me to construct a scenario where i favor one pholosophy in the economic case and the other philosophy in the political case

 

the point is, even if bbo doesn't remain free, the market will decide whether and for how long any monopoly exists

[Echognome]

As I was asked, just to clarify some of the economic points.

 

*To be considered a monopoly, the usual consideration is about a 50% market share and no other large firm (e.g. not duopoly).

 

*Monopolies (and duopolies, oligopolies) are typical in markets where there are entry barriers.

 

*I believe online bridge to have some barriers to entry, but not anywhere near say the barriers to entry for operating systems or building airplanes. There are definitely some network effects and we wouldn't expect a competitor to be able to displace BBO overnight.

 

*Monopolies are not a bad thing just because they are a monopoly. These network effects tell us this exact statement in BBO's case. BBO is partly a great program because lots of people play here. BBO is popular because it's a great program. The two feed off each other.

 

*I don't think the social responsibility issue was meant for a company the size of BBO. I think it was mainly meant for companies like the giant pharmaceuticals, microsoft, walmart, etc. Although, I do believe that it's a legitimate concern for those companies. (the last statement being my opinion, not a fact)

 

 

Now aside from the economic concerns (or should I say ECHO-nomic concerns), my personal view from this thread is that the censorship issue has been overblown. No one is required to advertise for their rival and if I am a company and am going to have someone represent me (even a volunteer!), then I can choose the way in which I want to be represented. If the volunteer doesn't like it, they don't have to volunteer! Second, it doesn't sound to me like the volunteers were actually censored in any way. They were requested, but not ordered to keep from mentioning swan.

 

I'm not quite sure where the political issues come into this thread, but I am firmly on the left and don't see what the problem is here.

 

Just my tuppence.

[mrdct]

You never have a "right" to use or take anything belonging to someone else.

Wrong. In many jurisdictions there are aspects of property law that do give certain people the right to use or take property belonging to other parties. Concepts such as "squatters' rights" come to mind. You could also examine the process by which entire continents have been taken from indigenous peoples for European settlement.

 

Fred would be within his rights if he banned the French or women from BBO.

Wrong. He would be in serious breach of anti-discrimination and human rights laws in many jurisdictions in which BBO operates.

[han]

That echonomic stuff was way over my hat, but I agree with the rest that the gnome wrote.

[DrTodd13]

You never have a "right" to use or take anything belonging to someone else.

Wrong. In many jurisdictions there are aspects of property law that do give certain people the right to use or take property belonging to other parties. Concepts such as "squatters' rights" come to mind. You could also examine the process by which entire continents have been taken from indigenous peoples for European settlement.

 

Fred would be within his rights if he banned the French or women from BBO.

Wrong. He would be in serious breach of anti-discrimination and human rights laws in many jurisdictions in which BBO operates.

See...this is a perfect example of how brainwashed people are. Government does not give rights and take rights away. Just because something is enshrined in "law" does not make it right. All that means is that a bunch of people have agreed to it. Given people's tendencies it is no wonder the vast majority of laws actually violate people's right.

 

On the matter of anti-discrimation laws, I never said Fred wouldn't be breaking any laws. I'm only claiming that it is your right to serve or not serve anyone you wish given the right to free association. To the degree that the government forces people to employ or serve those whom they would rather not, the government is violates the rights of those owners.

 

You only believe in freedom if you believe in the freedom for people to be miserable asses. If you won't grant people this freedom then you're nothing more than a bully who wants to force others to live as they see fit.

[mrdct]

Government does not give rights and take rights away.

They do in my experience.

[luke warm]

i think there's a difference between what todd is saying (words like 'inalienable' come to mind) and what you're saying... also, not to put words in his mouth, governments only take (or give) as much as allowed by the governed

 

so in that sense, we take away or grant rights to ourselves, governments are just the means by which we accomplish this