8 ms·

In Support of Free Speech

90 points by jletroui 10y ago

yock 10y ago
The title of the post is "In Support of Free Speech." I thought that kind of editorializing was generally frowned upon here?
- steveax 10y ago
  Indeed, cue xkcd 1357
  - DarkKomunalec 10y ago
    https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/ makes it seem like it'll be your peers that get your message silenced, but what if it's some board of directors for a conglomerate, that dislikes any attention to the environmental impact of their industrial pig farms/how much they profited from post-war contracts after the most recent invasion/their push for privatization of water sources? Almost all public speaking these days is done on private platforms, with ever fewer companies controlling them. Without them, almost no-one will hear you. The 1st amendment is just a legal codification of the broader goal of the free exchange of ideas. This goal is harmed by private censorship as well, even if it doesn't break the 1st amendment.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- sctb 10y ago
  Yes, thank you. We've reverted the submission title from “Shopify refuses to censor Breitbart”.
AlexB138 10y ago
Good. I've never read a Breitbart article, but there are few things they could say that I would find more distasteful than censorship. Interesting editorializing of the headline on this post.
- fao_ 10y ago
  > there are few things they could say that I would find more distasteful than censorship. Perhaps being supportive of people who have called for the extermination of black people and other minorities?
  - crazy1van 10y ago
    Source? That's a very serious claim to not have a rock solid source backing it up.
  - koolba 10y ago
    By your logic where does anyone that doesn't condemn BLM stand?
    - derrickdirge 10y ago
      When has BLM called for the extermination of anyone?
      - koolba 10y ago
        I consider throwing bricks as speaking through action: http://www.npr.org/2016/07/11/485593473/black-lives-matter-protest-turns-violent-in-st-paul http://www.npr.org/2016/07/11/485593473/black-lives-matter-p...
        illuminati1911 10y ago
        + Dallas police shooting by BLM and endless amounts of online racism. Just google "BLM + racism" and start reading.
        isleyaardvark 10y ago
        BLM leadership condemned the shooting. Googling "BLM + racism" mostly results in opponents of BLM calling them racist without backing up their arguments. This showed up in the results, and is more informative: https://www.splcenter.org/news/2016/07/19/black-lives-matter-not-hate-group https://www.splcenter.org/news/2016/07/19/black-lives-matter...
jszymborski 10y ago
I support their views on free speech, but as a matter of conscience, principle, and (more cynically) optics, they should donate all proceeds they make off of Breitbart or neo-nazi orders to civil liberties/rights organisations like the ACLU (which they mention in their post).
- keithwhor 10y ago
  I think this might the most reasonable stance I've read. I'm surprised the executive team didn't come up with something similar already.
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  Should Apple donate the profits of every Macbook sold to neo-Nazis? How do you identify them? Don't censor people and play into their victim complex. Treat them the exact same way you would anyone else and if you can't convince them through argument that they are wrong then you have nothing to stand on.
  - paulgb 10y ago
    What? Shopify can identify which profit comes through which account
  - tedunangst 10y ago
    Add a checkbox to the order form. "Donate the profits from my purchase to the ACLU."
    - mwpmaybe 10y ago
      These are neo-nazis buying products from a neo-nazi publication that happens to use Shopify for their online store. They're not going to opt-in to an ACLU donation. What the GGP is proposing is that Shopify take their cut of the transaction and donate it to the ACLU.
- cgag 10y ago
  Sometimes I wonder if they might not literally be Nazis.
paulgb 10y ago
If they want to prove it's about principles over profit, they could donate profits from the Breitbart account to the ACLU. Until they do that, they are allowed to work with whomever they like, but they can't take the moral high ground. Edit: jszymborski beat me to make this comment
wnevets 10y ago
Just dont get upset when people refuse to use shopify in protest.
- tomjen3 10y ago
  It is generally never free to stand for your principles. Do you want to encourage a world were people don't by harming does who do? I would be very careful what I wished for.
  - wnevets 10y ago
    If the argument is making money off of neo nazis is about protecting free speech then you cant get upset when customers exercise their free speech to not use your product.
- notcolin 10y ago
  On the contrary. I'm going to make it a point to use Shopify now.
  - wnevets 10y ago
    congrats
- yellowapple 10y ago
  This actually increases my desire to use Shopify, really. Not because I like Breitbart (I consider it to be drivel like most other news sites), but rather because if even they won't be booted off Shopify, it's highly unlikely that I would be. Shopify therefore looks like a very reliable and safe choice regardless of political viewpoints.
d2ncal 10y ago
Being liberal doesn't mean that you block everything that the other side is doing. It's also about being open and accepting to others and their views. Shopify did the right thing here.
- paulgb 10y ago
  Nobody has the obligation to help fundraise for hate speech.
  - tomp 10y ago
    Can you point to any examples of hate speech by Breitbart?
    - paulgb 10y ago
      "If for no other reasons than manners and aesthetics, we ought to think about shoving the next generation [of gays] back into Narnia." Yes, I know Milo is gay, doesn't mean this isn't advocating violence against a group of people, fitting most definitions of hate speech. I feel dirty linking to the article but you can google it for the source.
      - tomp 10y ago
        This [1] is a pretty tongue-in-cheek article (the quip about anal sex was particularly funny), but given that his main point seems to be that gays are smarter than average, so they should have more kids, I just cannot possibly interpret the above quote (or any other part of the article) as advocating violence... [1] http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/17/gay-rights-have-made-us-dumber-its-time-to-get-back-in-the-closet/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/17/gay-right...
- mikeash 10y ago
  Being liberal does not require accepting Nazis. I will defend their right to hold their views and say what they want, but they have no right to do business with a particular e-commerce site.
xwowsersx 10y ago
Alternative headline: "Shopify Stands Strong on Free Speech"
- xelipe 10y ago
  or "Shopify Makes Free Speech Great Again."
cjslep 10y ago
I don't like Breitbart, but I believe Shopify is making the right call, for a long list of reasons. Instead of focusing on Breitbart and giving it undue attention, we should all be listening to each other. Not listening-to-reply, but listening-to-understand.
diyorgasms 10y ago
Refusing to voluntarily engage in commerce is hardly censorship. All this post is saying is "We're totally fine with neo-Nazis, so long as we make some money from them." A principled boycott is not censorship, it is further free expression. Shame on shopify for abandoning principles in favor of profit.
- vaadu 10y ago
  The Nazis are the folks calling for censorship. The Ctrl-left folks better do some introspection or they will be next. http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/317248-dnc-boots-candidate-from-chairmans-race-for-criticizing-ellisons-islamic http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/317248-dnc-boots-candid...
  - diyorgasms 10y ago
    What I see is a bigot being censured. Arguably someone that islamophobic has no place in a civilized debate.
    - tomp 10y ago
      Why do you think it's OK to shun Nazis, but not OK to shun Muslims? Both are opinions/belief systems, hence a choice, and both are, in their extreme versions, quite brutal.
      - diyorgasms 10y ago
        Is this a serious question? It should be evident why it's okay to ostracize an ideology founded on the belief in genocide of "lesser" people. While some interpretations of Islam lead to violence, the same can be said about probably any religion, and Islam is not foundationally rooted in violence. If you legitimately can't tell the difference between a genocidal ideology and a religion then I cannot continue this conversation.
        tomp 10y ago
siegecraft 10y ago
Are products really free speech, though? That seems to be the core of their argument.
andrewmcwatters 10y ago
I wish more businesses would simply be that. A business. I don't want to hear about your moral superiority, because it's a race with no finish line. I don't care what a burger joint's position on world economics is, you sell burgers. I don't care what the tech industry has to say about immigration, you sell software. Nor Nike when they just sell shoes, or Coca-Cola when they just sell soda. Chick-fil-A shouldn't be selling traditional values and Oreo shouldn't sell gay rights. Shut up and sell your product. And guess what, it's far less controversial that way. Let people cast their vote, not corporations.
notacoward 10y ago
The headline is offensively misleading. A boycott, or severance of commercial relationship, is not censorship. It's people using commerce to express their values, which is also a form of free speech. Unlike true censorship, which comes from the government, both parties are free to seek other partners in promoting their products or messages. Lütke's attempt to paint this as a defense of free speech is disingenuous, and his attempt to portray anyone who disagrees as a censor is downright dishonest. [edit: "refuses to censor" seems to be a local modification to the original headline, which is definitely supposed to be against the rules]
- notcolin 10y ago
  > Lütke's attempt to paint this as a defense of free speech is disingenuous Is it? "To kick off a merchant is to censor ideas and interfere with the free exchange of products at the core of commerce. When we kick off a merchant, we’re asserting our own moral code as the superior one. But who gets to define that moral code? Where would it begin and end? Who gets to decide what can be sold and what can’t? If we start blocking out voices, we would fall short of our goals as a company to make commerce better for everyone. Instead, we would have a biased and diminished platform."
  - abpavel 10y ago
    So you're saying that Shopify can be used for porn and that Shopify does not have TOS and does not enforce it?
    - ZeroFries 10y ago
      Is that to be explained by legality rather than morality, though?
- tomp 10y ago
  Did you also support Visa's and MasterCard's decisions to stop transactions to WikiLeaks?
  - 10y ago
legodt 10y ago
I'm so glad shopify has the guts to stand up for white nationalists and calls for American ethnic cleansing. How brave of them to hold strong against those whiny liberals who have gone too far calling for the shutdown of hateful rhetoric against non whites and women. Free speech means that you can call for the violent oppression of an group, and still be entitled to turn a profit on it. Truly American values.
- dang 10y ago
  It's an abuse of HN to use it primarily for political or ideological battle. Since you've ignored our repeated requests to stop doing that, we've banned your account. HN exists for the gratification of intellectual curiosity. We can't be both that and a political battlefield, much as one can't go hiking in a forest fire: the one destroys the other. Occasional flareups are unavoidable, but when an account begins to use HN primarily for political battle, that clearly violates the intended use of the site. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
c0da 10y ago
http://lifehacker.com/5953755/what-exactly-is-freedom-of-speech-and-how-does-it-apply-to-the-internet http://lifehacker.com/5953755/what-exactly-is-freedom-of-spe... Freedom of speech refer's to a government's responsibility to protect freedom of speech. Private organizations are not held to that same standard. This is why websites can choose their advertisers and why reddit can ban a subreddit. Shopify should censor Breitbart.
- wvenable 10y ago
  Hacker news users were all up in arms when US financial giants VISA, MasterCard, PayPal, the Bank of America and Western Union engaged in a banking blockade against WikiLeaks. The argument was that these companies should be neutral in their dealings. I actually agree with you that Freedom of Speech does not compel any 3rd party to provide a platform for that speech. Shopify is perfectly within it's rights to deny a platform for anyone it chooses. However, I feel that's a race to the bottom. You have to be comfortable with companies discriminating against organizations you agree with as well.
- DarkKomunalec 10y ago
  No, freedom of speech refers to the -ability- to speak freely. The _1st amendment_ refers to the government. If, after speaking out against abuses by your employer, you find yourself fired and blackballed from any decent job due to corporate collusion, your freedom of speech is harmed, even though the government never got involved.
thedevil 10y ago
How freedom of speech has changed in ten years: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom_of_speech&type=revision&diff=764472577&oldid=113861969 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom_of_speech... From: "'Freedom of speech' is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship. It is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracy." To: "'Freedom of speech' is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction." Note how retaliation and censorship might no longer be considered an attack on free speech, if done by private individuals or non-government entities. Also, free speech is apparently no longer "an integral concept in modern liberal democracy".
- cholantesh 10y ago
  >implying Wikipedia is the authority on freedom of speech None of this is censorship, because Breitbart may still sell their merchandise using other storefronts and have not been impeded from publishing their authors' work.
mcphage 10y ago
In general, I support Shopify not dropping Breitbart. But this line I don't think works: > When we kick off a merchant, we’re asserting our own moral code as the superior one. But who gets to define that moral code? Well, who do you want to define your moral code? Do you want to define your own moral code, or do you want Breitbart to define your moral code?
- wvenable 10y ago
  I think they simply want to be neutral. There isn't anything inherently wrong with that. I think the average person appreciates that most of their vendors are neutral. Imagine if your ISP or your bank took a moral stance on everything?
- andrewmcwatters 10y ago
  Do you ask the guy at the hot dog stand what his position is on trade policy? Or the folks who bag your groceries how they feel about police brutality? Do you only purchase from Amazon vendors who make it clear that they support increasing taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year? Do you only buy TVs from companies that back legalization of marijuana? Do you only make bids on eBay for products sold from countries who support human rights progress? I mean you pay taxes on those products, which support those nations. Should _companies_ define moral code or _people?_
isleyaardvark 10y ago
That's not censorship, and as such is not "consistent with the position of the ACLU". In fact the ACLU has supported boycotts, which is what it would be. https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/power-boycott?width=700&height=540&inline=true https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/power-boycott?width=7... A more accurate title would be "Shopify refuses to stop working with Breitbart".
DanielBMarkham 10y ago
I find it odd that this needs to be either a post or something the community talks about. It'd be like an article titled "Local gas station provides gas to Nazis" Why of course they do. A secular, open society means you can have whatever opinion you like, as long as it is peaceful, and you can participate just like anyone else. How else would you want it? Modern activists seem quite odd to me. In the states, at least, you have the right for free and open political support to seek redress for your grievances. That is, something's not right about society or the government, so you use persuasion to argue your case to the rest of us. But that's not what's happening. Instead it looks a lot more like economic warfare. Person A, B, and C are wrong. They must be punished. There's not the usual outreach of persuading others that we've traditionally had. It's much more about being in the right club.
- diyorgasms 10y ago
  Being a Nazi is a priori violent. They have declared an intent to commit genocide by subscribing to that ideology. They ought to be excluded from society at every turn, because their goal is the destruction of our society and the mass murder of our peers.
  - fvdessen 10y ago
    How the hell is breitbart even remotely comparable to nazis ?
    - diyorgasms 10y ago
      "White nationalism" is rebranded Nazi ideology. And brietbart is assuredly white nationalist. I figure they had to change the name so recruits wouldn't be afraid of being hanged at The Hague. Edit: Here's a piece highlighting some examples - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/15/can-you-name-one-white-nationalist-article-at-breitbart-challenge-accepted/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/15/ca...
  - tomp 10y ago
    The problem with this argument is that everybody can be called a Nazi. The only people who're using the word "Nazi" to describe "Breitbart" seriously are those who completely disrespect the millions of actual victims of the Nazi regime.
mikeash 10y ago
"Are there limits to what you would host?" "Instead of imposing our own morality on the platform, we defer to the law. All products must be legal in the jurisdiction of the business." Compare that to the terms of service: "We may, but have no obligation to, remove Store Content and Accounts containing content that we determine in our sole discretion are unlawful, offensive, threatening, libelous, defamatory, pornographic, obscene or otherwise objectionable or violates any party’s intellectual property or these Terms of Service." If their entire policy is to defer to the law, why do they reserve the right to remove content for all these other reasons? Maybe they've changed their mind and haven't gotten around to codifying the new policy? I took a look around their store to see if the objection was purely based on their views, or if there were offensive products. I came across a t-shirt which puts "E Pluribus Unum" inside an eagle insignia that is clearly the Nazi parteiadler minus the swastika part. I think it would be reasonable to say that this is offensive and possibly threatening, although no doubt perfectly legal in most places. (This is not my first experience with surprise parteiadlers. I once got a free pair of sunglasses with a contact lens exam which turned out to be from BOY London, whose logo is the parteiadler minus the swastika. I exchanged them and suggested to that store that they might want to stop carrying merchandise with Nazi symbols on them. They were rather shocked to discover it. Until then, I didn't know that I had to check for Nazi symbols on stuff!) Beyond that, I dislike this idea that picking and choosing with whom you do business is "censorship." This isn't speech, it's commerce. You're helping to fund these guys. Breitbart absolutely has the right to free speech, but they have no right to sell their wares through whatever platform they choose. If Shopify chose not to send money to these crypto-Nazis, it would not be an act of censorship. Their words would still be available to anyone who chooses to obtain them, Shopify just wouldn't be helping anymore.
- yellowapple 10y ago
  The extra legalese is usually a CYA. They can reserve the right to remove "offensive" content without necessarily exercising that right.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Well sure. But if your policy really is "anything that's legal" then there's no need to CYA. The only reason you'd have that clause in the first place is if you thought you might want to remove legal but offensive content. Imagine if someone made a big deal about being inclusive of all races, but their TOS said, "We reserve the right to kick out black people." Nothing says they have to exercise that right....
yedava 10y ago
As a comment on the post notes, Shopify already "censors" certain viewpoints. From their TOS: "We may, but have no obligation to, remove Store Content and Accounts containing content that we determine in our sole discretion are unlawful, offensive, threatening, libelous, defamatory, pornographic, obscene or otherwise objectionable or violates any party’s intellectual property or these Terms of Service." So they're actually saying "We don't find Breitbart violating the moral code as set in our TOS". This is not about free speech.
lightedman 10y ago
HN news mods are slowly becoming Slashdot mods with stories like this.
- grzm 10y ago
  Submissions are by HN members. The guidelines clearly state that the title should not be modified unless clearly link bait: [P]lease use the original title, unless it is misleading or link bait. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html When the mods are aware that a title has been unnecessarily editorialized, from what I've observed they always update the title, either back to the original or to something conforming to the guidelines in the case of egregiously bad original titles. If you see a title that's been editorialized, make a comment (as others have done here), and if it's something you feel particularly strongly about, contact the mods via the Contact link in the footer.
  - lightedman 10y ago
    Your guidelines don't cover obvious bias in the headline as it exists without modification. If you couldn't see the bias off the bat, make room for those who do, please, so this site may continue to improve unlike the rest.
    - lightedman 10y ago
      To boot, on a prior subject - give me a font that works in BRAILLE for capitalization, please. Because most of the traffic which I direct to YOU is from BLIND PEOPLE - in which my ALL CAPS is the ONLY thing they can discern as NOTHING exists for italicization font-wise in that domain.
      - grzm 10y ago
        Going quite off-topic, I believe you're referring to this exchange: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13526006 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13526006 Thanks for clarifying the context of the prior comment. I think this may be something you'd like to email the mods about (at hn@ycombinator.com). This isn't a domain I have any experience in. Back in the day, I read pieces on accessibility by Joe Clark[0] with interest, and had hoped by now the tech had reached a point where elements such as <i> would be interpreted by Braille devices. I'm sorry to hear that doesn't seem to be the case. [0]: http://joeclark.org/weblogs/ http://joeclark.org/weblogs/
whatok 10y ago
What do people think about banks refusing to service marijuana or adult industry customers?
- yellowapple 10y ago
  It depends on the laws and regulations of the relevant jurisdictions. If it's not illegal, then it shouldn't be restricted, IMO, but that's ultimately up to the bank in question. Pragmatically speaking, if both are legal, then both provide a relatively safe return on any investment made; both are very big (and growing) industries, for better or worse.
mrnzc 10y ago
Shopify somehow arbitrarily intermingles an "objective" point of view (deferring the moral judgment to the law) and a "normative" point of view ("We need to protect the free speech"). I think the very statement and conduct of Spotify in fact demonstrates the hypocrisy (i.e. performative contradiction): "We are liberals who do not think it is okay what Breitbart does." vs. "It is okay what they do since it is within the bounds of law"
chronid 10y ago
On November 8th, the day of the US election, the whole world got more black and white. People in the center have been called upon to choose sides. In a way, my position is an appeal to preserve some of the gray in the world. All solutions necessarily have to come from the middle ground. No progress happens when ideas are censored and everyone sorts into one of two camps. The world is a nuanced and complicated place. Let’s accept that and use rational discourse to make the world — and commerce — better for everyone. <slow clap>
curun1r 10y ago
The decision to continue to work with Breitbart aside, this post shows the failure of civics education in this country. > Products are a form of speech, and free speech must be fiercely protected, even if we disagree with some of the voices. The right to free speech that's protected in our constitution refers to speech being protected from the government. Nowhere in our constitution does it state that other individuals and businesses need to support the speech of others. It's a common misunderstanding of the first amendment. You could argue that by not censoring speech you find distasteful, you're adhering to the principles of the first amendment that people should be able to say whatever they choose without reprisal. But you could just as easily argue that in refusing to support speech you find harmful to this country, you're exercising your own constitutionally-protected right to freedom of expression. The important point is that the first amendment protects both Breitbart and anyone refusing to work with Breitbart from government punishment or silencing of that speech. And, in what might be more relevant to Shopify, the first amendment also protects anyone who wishes to advocate for a boycott of Shopify. They would have had a stronger argument if they talked about discrimination. Their decision shares more in common with the decisions that other businesses have made to discriminate against people by not serving them. The oft-publicized example is religious bakers that won't make wedding cakes for gay couples. The difference being that what Breitbart is doing does not make them part of a protected class.
- notcolin 10y ago
  The concept of freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction. You're of the misunderstanding that the First Amendment and the last ~300 years of judicial precedent somehow transcend this concept (QED: it doesn't). Not once does Lütke mention the First Amendment. You did that all on your own. More to the point, he isn't wrong in what he's saying. You're having a difficult time agreeing with him because your civics education prevents you from thinking beyond what was written on a nearly 300 year old document and you probably believe that Breitbart is the next Stormfront. Perhaps you should read something more modern, like Captain America #275 pg. 20. http://i.imgur.com/WCF5GVE.png http://i.imgur.com/WCF5GVE.png
  - 10y ago
stillsut 10y ago
Milton Firedman's most famous work is Capitalism and Freedom and yet within that work, he completely rejects Hollywood blacklists (or "boycotts" if you prefer). If you consider his main point is that under communism, people are un-free, it seems odd that he would sympathize with avowed members of American communist party, who would ultimately like to bring communism to the US, and in Friedman's eyes, result in societal catastrophe. Doubly so given the power of persuasion that Hollywood writers wield. So why does he reject the ability of studio execs to simply exercise their freedom of association, and not contract with blacklisted writers? The problem in Friedman's eyes is that this boycott reduces to collusion. And under collusion, the benfits of free market dry up: for example, in the free market you can shop your script, no matter who you are, and if your product is good, you could make a living out of it. When firms collude to establish acceptable political beleifs as a pre-condition to an economic exchange, you have reduced the economic freedom of everyone who is not wealthy enough to establish a movie studio for themselves. In effect, you have by-passed democracy ("one person, one vote") and moved to [benevolent] oligarchy ("one chairman, one vote"). As the old saying goes - you're freedom to swing your elbows ends where my nose begins, and so too with economic association. If you would starve a man until he renounced his political preferences - even if you deem them antithetical to the good of society - you're no better than Stalin.

90 points by jletroui 10y ago

yock 10y ago

The title of the post is "In Support of Free Speech." I thought that kind of editorializing was generally frowned upon here?

steveax 10y ago
Indeed, cue xkcd 1357
- DarkKomunalec 10y ago
  https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/ makes it seem like it'll be your peers that get your message silenced, but what if it's some board of directors for a conglomerate, that dislikes any attention to the environmental impact of their industrial pig farms/how much they profited from post-war contracts after the most recent invasion/their push for privatization of water sources? Almost all public speaking these days is done on private platforms, with ever fewer companies controlling them. Without them, almost no-one will hear you. The 1st amendment is just a legal codification of the broader goal of the free exchange of ideas. This goal is harmed by private censorship as well, even if it doesn't break the 1st amendment.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
sctb 10y ago
Yes, thank you. We've reverted the submission title from “Shopify refuses to censor Breitbart”.

AlexB138 10y ago

Good. I've never read a Breitbart article, but there are few things they could say that I would find more distasteful than censorship. Interesting editorializing of the headline on this post.

fao_ 10y ago
> there are few things they could say that I would find more distasteful than censorship. Perhaps being supportive of people who have called for the extermination of black people and other minorities?
- crazy1van 10y ago
  Source? That's a very serious claim to not have a rock solid source backing it up.
- koolba 10y ago
  By your logic where does anyone that doesn't condemn BLM stand?
  - derrickdirge 10y ago
    When has BLM called for the extermination of anyone?
    - koolba 10y ago
      I consider throwing bricks as speaking through action: http://www.npr.org/2016/07/11/485593473/black-lives-matter-protest-turns-violent-in-st-paul http://www.npr.org/2016/07/11/485593473/black-lives-matter-p...
      - illuminati1911 10y ago
        + Dallas police shooting by BLM and endless amounts of online racism. Just google "BLM + racism" and start reading.
        isleyaardvark 10y ago
        BLM leadership condemned the shooting. Googling "BLM + racism" mostly results in opponents of BLM calling them racist without backing up their arguments. This showed up in the results, and is more informative: https://www.splcenter.org/news/2016/07/19/black-lives-matter-not-hate-group https://www.splcenter.org/news/2016/07/19/black-lives-matter...

jszymborski 10y ago

I support their views on free speech, but as a matter of conscience, principle, and (more cynically) optics, they should donate all proceeds they make off of Breitbart or neo-nazi orders to civil liberties/rights organisations like the ACLU (which they mention in their post).

keithwhor 10y ago
I think this might the most reasonable stance I've read. I'm surprised the executive team didn't come up with something similar already.
aaron-lebo 10y ago
Should Apple donate the profits of every Macbook sold to neo-Nazis? How do you identify them? Don't censor people and play into their victim complex. Treat them the exact same way you would anyone else and if you can't convince them through argument that they are wrong then you have nothing to stand on.
- paulgb 10y ago
  What? Shopify can identify which profit comes through which account
- tedunangst 10y ago
  Add a checkbox to the order form. "Donate the profits from my purchase to the ACLU."
  - mwpmaybe 10y ago
    These are neo-nazis buying products from a neo-nazi publication that happens to use Shopify for their online store. They're not going to opt-in to an ACLU donation. What the GGP is proposing is that Shopify take their cut of the transaction and donate it to the ACLU.
cgag 10y ago
Sometimes I wonder if they might not literally be Nazis.

paulgb 10y ago

If they want to prove it's about principles over profit, they could donate profits from the Breitbart account to the ACLU. Until they do that, they are allowed to work with whomever they like, but they can't take the moral high ground. Edit: jszymborski beat me to make this comment

wnevets 10y ago

Just dont get upset when people refuse to use shopify in protest.

tomjen3 10y ago
It is generally never free to stand for your principles. Do you want to encourage a world were people don't by harming does who do? I would be very careful what I wished for.
- wnevets 10y ago
  If the argument is making money off of neo nazis is about protecting free speech then you cant get upset when customers exercise their free speech to not use your product.
notcolin 10y ago
On the contrary. I'm going to make it a point to use Shopify now.
- wnevets 10y ago
  congrats
yellowapple 10y ago
This actually increases my desire to use Shopify, really. Not because I like Breitbart (I consider it to be drivel like most other news sites), but rather because if even they won't be booted off Shopify, it's highly unlikely that I would be. Shopify therefore looks like a very reliable and safe choice regardless of political viewpoints.

d2ncal 10y ago

Being liberal doesn't mean that you block everything that the other side is doing. It's also about being open and accepting to others and their views. Shopify did the right thing here.

paulgb 10y ago
Nobody has the obligation to help fundraise for hate speech.
- tomp 10y ago
  Can you point to any examples of hate speech by Breitbart?
  - paulgb 10y ago
    "If for no other reasons than manners and aesthetics, we ought to think about shoving the next generation [of gays] back into Narnia." Yes, I know Milo is gay, doesn't mean this isn't advocating violence against a group of people, fitting most definitions of hate speech. I feel dirty linking to the article but you can google it for the source.
    - tomp 10y ago
      This [1] is a pretty tongue-in-cheek article (the quip about anal sex was particularly funny), but given that his main point seems to be that gays are smarter than average, so they should have more kids, I just cannot possibly interpret the above quote (or any other part of the article) as advocating violence... [1] http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/17/gay-rights-have-made-us-dumber-its-time-to-get-back-in-the-closet/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/17/gay-right...
mikeash 10y ago
Being liberal does not require accepting Nazis. I will defend their right to hold their views and say what they want, but they have no right to do business with a particular e-commerce site.

xwowsersx 10y ago

Alternative headline: "Shopify Stands Strong on Free Speech"

xelipe 10y ago
or "Shopify Makes Free Speech Great Again."

cjslep 10y ago

I don't like Breitbart, but I believe Shopify is making the right call, for a long list of reasons. Instead of focusing on Breitbart and giving it undue attention, we should all be listening to each other. Not listening-to-reply, but listening-to-understand.

diyorgasms 10y ago

Refusing to voluntarily engage in commerce is hardly censorship. All this post is saying is "We're totally fine with neo-Nazis, so long as we make some money from them." A principled boycott is not censorship, it is further free expression. Shame on shopify for abandoning principles in favor of profit.

vaadu 10y ago
The Nazis are the folks calling for censorship. The Ctrl-left folks better do some introspection or they will be next. http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/317248-dnc-boots-candidate-from-chairmans-race-for-criticizing-ellisons-islamic http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/317248-dnc-boots-candid...
- diyorgasms 10y ago
  What I see is a bigot being censured. Arguably someone that islamophobic has no place in a civilized debate.
  - tomp 10y ago
    Why do you think it's OK to shun Nazis, but not OK to shun Muslims? Both are opinions/belief systems, hence a choice, and both are, in their extreme versions, quite brutal.
    - diyorgasms 10y ago
      Is this a serious question? It should be evident why it's okay to ostracize an ideology founded on the belief in genocide of "lesser" people. While some interpretations of Islam lead to violence, the same can be said about probably any religion, and Islam is not foundationally rooted in violence. If you legitimately can't tell the difference between a genocidal ideology and a religion then I cannot continue this conversation.
      - tomp 10y ago

siegecraft 10y ago

Are products really free speech, though? That seems to be the core of their argument.

andrewmcwatters 10y ago

I wish more businesses would simply be that. A business. I don't want to hear about your moral superiority, because it's a race with no finish line. I don't care what a burger joint's position on world economics is, you sell burgers. I don't care what the tech industry has to say about immigration, you sell software. Nor Nike when they just sell shoes, or Coca-Cola when they just sell soda. Chick-fil-A shouldn't be selling traditional values and Oreo shouldn't sell gay rights. Shut up and sell your product. And guess what, it's far less controversial that way. Let people cast their vote, not corporations.

notacoward 10y ago

The headline is offensively misleading. A boycott, or severance of commercial relationship, is not censorship. It's people using commerce to express their values, which is also a form of free speech. Unlike true censorship, which comes from the government, both parties are free to seek other partners in promoting their products or messages. Lütke's attempt to paint this as a defense of free speech is disingenuous, and his attempt to portray anyone who disagrees as a censor is downright dishonest. [edit: "refuses to censor" seems to be a local modification to the original headline, which is definitely supposed to be against the rules]

notcolin 10y ago
> Lütke's attempt to paint this as a defense of free speech is disingenuous Is it? "To kick off a merchant is to censor ideas and interfere with the free exchange of products at the core of commerce. When we kick off a merchant, we’re asserting our own moral code as the superior one. But who gets to define that moral code? Where would it begin and end? Who gets to decide what can be sold and what can’t? If we start blocking out voices, we would fall short of our goals as a company to make commerce better for everyone. Instead, we would have a biased and diminished platform."
- abpavel 10y ago
  So you're saying that Shopify can be used for porn and that Shopify does not have TOS and does not enforce it?
  - ZeroFries 10y ago
    Is that to be explained by legality rather than morality, though?
tomp 10y ago
Did you also support Visa's and MasterCard's decisions to stop transactions to WikiLeaks?
- 10y ago

legodt 10y ago

I'm so glad shopify has the guts to stand up for white nationalists and calls for American ethnic cleansing. How brave of them to hold strong against those whiny liberals who have gone too far calling for the shutdown of hateful rhetoric against non whites and women. Free speech means that you can call for the violent oppression of an group, and still be entitled to turn a profit on it. Truly American values.

dang 10y ago
It's an abuse of HN to use it primarily for political or ideological battle. Since you've ignored our repeated requests to stop doing that, we've banned your account. HN exists for the gratification of intellectual curiosity. We can't be both that and a political battlefield, much as one can't go hiking in a forest fire: the one destroys the other. Occasional flareups are unavoidable, but when an account begins to use HN primarily for political battle, that clearly violates the intended use of the site. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

c0da 10y ago

http://lifehacker.com/5953755/what-exactly-is-freedom-of-speech-and-how-does-it-apply-to-the-internet http://lifehacker.com/5953755/what-exactly-is-freedom-of-spe... Freedom of speech refer's to a government's responsibility to protect freedom of speech. Private organizations are not held to that same standard. This is why websites can choose their advertisers and why reddit can ban a subreddit. Shopify should censor Breitbart.

wvenable 10y ago
Hacker news users were all up in arms when US financial giants VISA, MasterCard, PayPal, the Bank of America and Western Union engaged in a banking blockade against WikiLeaks. The argument was that these companies should be neutral in their dealings. I actually agree with you that Freedom of Speech does not compel any 3rd party to provide a platform for that speech. Shopify is perfectly within it's rights to deny a platform for anyone it chooses. However, I feel that's a race to the bottom. You have to be comfortable with companies discriminating against organizations you agree with as well.
DarkKomunalec 10y ago
No, freedom of speech refers to the -ability- to speak freely. The _1st amendment_ refers to the government. If, after speaking out against abuses by your employer, you find yourself fired and blackballed from any decent job due to corporate collusion, your freedom of speech is harmed, even though the government never got involved.

thedevil 10y ago

How freedom of speech has changed in ten years: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom_of_speech&type=revision&diff=764472577&oldid=113861969 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Freedom_of_speech... From: "'Freedom of speech' is the concept of being able to speak freely without censorship. It is often regarded as an integral concept in modern liberal democracy." To: "'Freedom of speech' is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction." Note how retaliation and censorship might no longer be considered an attack on free speech, if done by private individuals or non-government entities. Also, free speech is apparently no longer "an integral concept in modern liberal democracy".

cholantesh 10y ago
>implying Wikipedia is the authority on freedom of speech None of this is censorship, because Breitbart may still sell their merchandise using other storefronts and have not been impeded from publishing their authors' work.

mcphage 10y ago

In general, I support Shopify not dropping Breitbart. But this line I don't think works: > When we kick off a merchant, we’re asserting our own moral code as the superior one. But who gets to define that moral code? Well, who do you want to define your moral code? Do you want to define your own moral code, or do you want Breitbart to define your moral code?

wvenable 10y ago
I think they simply want to be neutral. There isn't anything inherently wrong with that. I think the average person appreciates that most of their vendors are neutral. Imagine if your ISP or your bank took a moral stance on everything?
andrewmcwatters 10y ago
Do you ask the guy at the hot dog stand what his position is on trade policy? Or the folks who bag your groceries how they feel about police brutality? Do you only purchase from Amazon vendors who make it clear that they support increasing taxes on those making more than $250,000 a year? Do you only buy TVs from companies that back legalization of marijuana? Do you only make bids on eBay for products sold from countries who support human rights progress? I mean you pay taxes on those products, which support those nations. Should _companies_ define moral code or _people?_

isleyaardvark 10y ago

That's not censorship, and as such is not "consistent with the position of the ACLU". In fact the ACLU has supported boycotts, which is what it would be. https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/power-boycott?width=700&height=540&inline=true https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/power-boycott?width=7... A more accurate title would be "Shopify refuses to stop working with Breitbart".

DanielBMarkham 10y ago

I find it odd that this needs to be either a post or something the community talks about. It'd be like an article titled "Local gas station provides gas to Nazis" Why of course they do. A secular, open society means you can have whatever opinion you like, as long as it is peaceful, and you can participate just like anyone else. How else would you want it? Modern activists seem quite odd to me. In the states, at least, you have the right for free and open political support to seek redress for your grievances. That is, something's not right about society or the government, so you use persuasion to argue your case to the rest of us. But that's not what's happening. Instead it looks a lot more like economic warfare. Person A, B, and C are wrong. They must be punished. There's not the usual outreach of persuading others that we've traditionally had. It's much more about being in the right club.

diyorgasms 10y ago
Being a Nazi is a priori violent. They have declared an intent to commit genocide by subscribing to that ideology. They ought to be excluded from society at every turn, because their goal is the destruction of our society and the mass murder of our peers.
- fvdessen 10y ago
  How the hell is breitbart even remotely comparable to nazis ?
  - diyorgasms 10y ago
    "White nationalism" is rebranded Nazi ideology. And brietbart is assuredly white nationalist. I figure they had to change the name so recruits wouldn't be afraid of being hanged at The Hague. Edit: Here's a piece highlighting some examples - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/15/can-you-name-one-white-nationalist-article-at-breitbart-challenge-accepted/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/15/ca...
- tomp 10y ago
  The problem with this argument is that everybody can be called a Nazi. The only people who're using the word "Nazi" to describe "Breitbart" seriously are those who completely disrespect the millions of actual victims of the Nazi regime.

mikeash 10y ago

"Are there limits to what you would host?" "Instead of imposing our own morality on the platform, we defer to the law. All products must be legal in the jurisdiction of the business." Compare that to the terms of service: "We may, but have no obligation to, remove Store Content and Accounts containing content that we determine in our sole discretion are unlawful, offensive, threatening, libelous, defamatory, pornographic, obscene or otherwise objectionable or violates any party’s intellectual property or these Terms of Service." If their entire policy is to defer to the law, why do they reserve the right to remove content for all these other reasons? Maybe they've changed their mind and haven't gotten around to codifying the new policy? I took a look around their store to see if the objection was purely based on their views, or if there were offensive products. I came across a t-shirt which puts "E Pluribus Unum" inside an eagle insignia that is clearly the Nazi parteiadler minus the swastika part. I think it would be reasonable to say that this is offensive and possibly threatening, although no doubt perfectly legal in most places. (This is not my first experience with surprise parteiadlers. I once got a free pair of sunglasses with a contact lens exam which turned out to be from BOY London, whose logo is the parteiadler minus the swastika. I exchanged them and suggested to that store that they might want to stop carrying merchandise with Nazi symbols on them. They were rather shocked to discover it. Until then, I didn't know that I had to check for Nazi symbols on stuff!) Beyond that, I dislike this idea that picking and choosing with whom you do business is "censorship." This isn't speech, it's commerce. You're helping to fund these guys. Breitbart absolutely has the right to free speech, but they have no right to sell their wares through whatever platform they choose. If Shopify chose not to send money to these crypto-Nazis, it would not be an act of censorship. Their words would still be available to anyone who chooses to obtain them, Shopify just wouldn't be helping anymore.

yellowapple 10y ago
The extra legalese is usually a CYA. They can reserve the right to remove "offensive" content without necessarily exercising that right.
- mikeash 10y ago
  Well sure. But if your policy really is "anything that's legal" then there's no need to CYA. The only reason you'd have that clause in the first place is if you thought you might want to remove legal but offensive content. Imagine if someone made a big deal about being inclusive of all races, but their TOS said, "We reserve the right to kick out black people." Nothing says they have to exercise that right....

yedava 10y ago

As a comment on the post notes, Shopify already "censors" certain viewpoints. From their TOS: "We may, but have no obligation to, remove Store Content and Accounts containing content that we determine in our sole discretion are unlawful, offensive, threatening, libelous, defamatory, pornographic, obscene or otherwise objectionable or violates any party’s intellectual property or these Terms of Service." So they're actually saying "We don't find Breitbart violating the moral code as set in our TOS". This is not about free speech.

lightedman 10y ago

HN news mods are slowly becoming Slashdot mods with stories like this.

grzm 10y ago
Submissions are by HN members. The guidelines clearly state that the title should not be modified unless clearly link bait: [P]lease use the original title, unless it is misleading or link bait. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html When the mods are aware that a title has been unnecessarily editorialized, from what I've observed they always update the title, either back to the original or to something conforming to the guidelines in the case of egregiously bad original titles. If you see a title that's been editorialized, make a comment (as others have done here), and if it's something you feel particularly strongly about, contact the mods via the Contact link in the footer.
- lightedman 10y ago
  Your guidelines don't cover obvious bias in the headline as it exists without modification. If you couldn't see the bias off the bat, make room for those who do, please, so this site may continue to improve unlike the rest.
  - lightedman 10y ago
    To boot, on a prior subject - give me a font that works in BRAILLE for capitalization, please. Because most of the traffic which I direct to YOU is from BLIND PEOPLE - in which my ALL CAPS is the ONLY thing they can discern as NOTHING exists for italicization font-wise in that domain.
    - grzm 10y ago
      Going quite off-topic, I believe you're referring to this exchange: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13526006 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13526006 Thanks for clarifying the context of the prior comment. I think this may be something you'd like to email the mods about (at hn@ycombinator.com). This isn't a domain I have any experience in. Back in the day, I read pieces on accessibility by Joe Clark[0] with interest, and had hoped by now the tech had reached a point where elements such as <i> would be interpreted by Braille devices. I'm sorry to hear that doesn't seem to be the case. [0]: http://joeclark.org/weblogs/ http://joeclark.org/weblogs/

whatok 10y ago

What do people think about banks refusing to service marijuana or adult industry customers?

yellowapple 10y ago
It depends on the laws and regulations of the relevant jurisdictions. If it's not illegal, then it shouldn't be restricted, IMO, but that's ultimately up to the bank in question. Pragmatically speaking, if both are legal, then both provide a relatively safe return on any investment made; both are very big (and growing) industries, for better or worse.

mrnzc 10y ago

Shopify somehow arbitrarily intermingles an "objective" point of view (deferring the moral judgment to the law) and a "normative" point of view ("We need to protect the free speech"). I think the very statement and conduct of Spotify in fact demonstrates the hypocrisy (i.e. performative contradiction): "We are liberals who do not think it is okay what Breitbart does." vs. "It is okay what they do since it is within the bounds of law"

chronid 10y ago

On November 8th, the day of the US election, the whole world got more black and white. People in the center have been called upon to choose sides. In a way, my position is an appeal to preserve some of the gray in the world. All solutions necessarily have to come from the middle ground. No progress happens when ideas are censored and everyone sorts into one of two camps. The world is a nuanced and complicated place. Let’s accept that and use rational discourse to make the world — and commerce — better for everyone. <slow clap>

curun1r 10y ago

The decision to continue to work with Breitbart aside, this post shows the failure of civics education in this country. > Products are a form of speech, and free speech must be fiercely protected, even if we disagree with some of the voices. The right to free speech that's protected in our constitution refers to speech being protected from the government. Nowhere in our constitution does it state that other individuals and businesses need to support the speech of others. It's a common misunderstanding of the first amendment. You could argue that by not censoring speech you find distasteful, you're adhering to the principles of the first amendment that people should be able to say whatever they choose without reprisal. But you could just as easily argue that in refusing to support speech you find harmful to this country, you're exercising your own constitutionally-protected right to freedom of expression. The important point is that the first amendment protects both Breitbart and anyone refusing to work with Breitbart from government punishment or silencing of that speech. And, in what might be more relevant to Shopify, the first amendment also protects anyone who wishes to advocate for a boycott of Shopify. They would have had a stronger argument if they talked about discrimination. Their decision shares more in common with the decisions that other businesses have made to discriminate against people by not serving them. The oft-publicized example is religious bakers that won't make wedding cakes for gay couples. The difference being that what Breitbart is doing does not make them part of a protected class.

notcolin 10y ago
The concept of freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction. You're of the misunderstanding that the First Amendment and the last ~300 years of judicial precedent somehow transcend this concept (QED: it doesn't). Not once does Lütke mention the First Amendment. You did that all on your own. More to the point, he isn't wrong in what he's saying. You're having a difficult time agreeing with him because your civics education prevents you from thinking beyond what was written on a nearly 300 year old document and you probably believe that Breitbart is the next Stormfront. Perhaps you should read something more modern, like Captain America #275 pg. 20. http://i.imgur.com/WCF5GVE.png http://i.imgur.com/WCF5GVE.png
- 10y ago

stillsut 10y ago

Milton Firedman's most famous work is Capitalism and Freedom and yet within that work, he completely rejects Hollywood blacklists (or "boycotts" if you prefer). If you consider his main point is that under communism, people are un-free, it seems odd that he would sympathize with avowed members of American communist party, who would ultimately like to bring communism to the US, and in Friedman's eyes, result in societal catastrophe. Doubly so given the power of persuasion that Hollywood writers wield. So why does he reject the ability of studio execs to simply exercise their freedom of association, and not contract with blacklisted writers? The problem in Friedman's eyes is that this boycott reduces to collusion. And under collusion, the benfits of free market dry up: for example, in the free market you can shop your script, no matter who you are, and if your product is good, you could make a living out of it. When firms collude to establish acceptable political beleifs as a pre-condition to an economic exchange, you have reduced the economic freedom of everyone who is not wealthy enough to establish a movie studio for themselves. In effect, you have by-passed democracy ("one person, one vote") and moved to [benevolent] oligarchy ("one chairman, one vote"). As the old saying goes - you're freedom to swing your elbows ends where my nose begins, and so too with economic association. If you would starve a man until he renounced his political preferences - even if you deem them antithetical to the good of society - you're no better than Stalin.