4 ms·

>Attack the business models of companies who produce content we find offensive, politically incorrect, or don't align with our world view -- yet are still prote

by rgejman 10y ago

>Attack the business models of companies who produce content we find offensive, politically incorrect, or don't align with our world view -- yet are still protected under the first amendment. >Just because it is a different point of view does not make it fake or hateful or undeserving of ad dollars. Without quibbling over whether some of their content is hateful (I think it is; you disagree), what's wrong with letting the free market de-value ads run on their network? What's wrong with attacking their business model? Companies don't have to run ads next to headlines like "Would you rather your child had feminism or cancer?" That's the free market at work.

candiodari 10y ago
That's not what's being done here. We're talking about defunding and banning anyone who has "offensive" opinions. Which is distinctly not limited to attacking feminism. Commenting on the Turkish prime ministers' family oil industry enterprises, for instance, got people banned from things like twitter. Various political actors got banned. Twitter has in fact threatened to ban a presidential candidate. Yes, it was Donald Trump, yes I may even understand why. It is still a bridge too far. Now we're talking about firms refusing to work with one another based on political differences. Is that REALLY the society we want to become ? Besides, this is discrimination. There was a time, not that long ago, that everybody was clamoring against that. According to the Geneva convention definition, what you're suggesting is definitely discrimination.
- rgejman 10y ago
  >That's not what's being done here. We're talking about defunding and banning anyone who has "offensive" opinions. No we're not. We're talking about reaching out to companies advertising on websites that contain both broadly offensive (e.g. against women) and specifically hateful (e.g. against certain individuals) rhetoric to let them know these ads exist. >Now we're talking about firms refusing to work with one another based on political differences. Is that REALLY the society we want to become ? You don't have to get into bed with people you find rude and offensive. That's a cardinal rule of an open society. Saying "Sir, I find your content offensive and I will not pay you to show ads to your visitors" is discrimination in only the sense that companies can discriminate between whom we want to do business with.
  - candiodari 10y ago
    > is discrimination in only the sense that companies can discriminate between whom we want to do business with. And when the southern bakery refuses to sell to democrats ? The rule is that if you sell to the public you don't get to discriminate. I don't know the details about how that applies in this particular case, but ... It seems an entirely reasonable rule to me.

by rgejman 10y ago

candiodari 10y ago

That's not what's being done here. We're talking about defunding and banning anyone who has "offensive" opinions. Which is distinctly not limited to attacking feminism. Commenting on the Turkish prime ministers' family oil industry enterprises, for instance, got people banned from things like twitter. Various political actors got banned. Twitter has in fact threatened to ban a presidential candidate. Yes, it was Donald Trump, yes I may even understand why. It is still a bridge too far. Now we're talking about firms refusing to work with one another based on political differences. Is that REALLY the society we want to become ? Besides, this is discrimination. There was a time, not that long ago, that everybody was clamoring against that. According to the Geneva convention definition, what you're suggesting is definitely discrimination.

rgejman 10y ago
>That's not what's being done here. We're talking about defunding and banning anyone who has "offensive" opinions. No we're not. We're talking about reaching out to companies advertising on websites that contain both broadly offensive (e.g. against women) and specifically hateful (e.g. against certain individuals) rhetoric to let them know these ads exist. >Now we're talking about firms refusing to work with one another based on political differences. Is that REALLY the society we want to become ? You don't have to get into bed with people you find rude and offensive. That's a cardinal rule of an open society. Saying "Sir, I find your content offensive and I will not pay you to show ads to your visitors" is discrimination in only the sense that companies can discriminate between whom we want to do business with.
- candiodari 10y ago
  > is discrimination in only the sense that companies can discriminate between whom we want to do business with. And when the southern bakery refuses to sell to democrats ? The rule is that if you sell to the public you don't get to discriminate. I don't know the details about how that applies in this particular case, but ... It seems an entirely reasonable rule to me.