6 ms·

As a non-American, I find it quite worrying that American companies (specifically tech and SV ones) that operate globally are so eager to police politics on the

As a non-American, I find it quite worrying that American companies (specifically tech and SV ones) that operate globally are so eager to police politics on their platforms. While I don't agree with White power rallies (which should go without saying), they have as much right to service as any other political group. StackOverflow already took an "open-borders, anti-Trump, or get out mentality", so its not a stretch to say that any right leaning belief, or more acurately any non-extreme left belief will be under fire from more and more companies. That is troubling indeed.

flukus 9y ago
> StackOverflow already took an "open-borders, anti-Trump, or get out mentality", so its not a stretch to say that any right leaning belief, or more acurately any non-extreme left belief will be under fire from more and more companies. This approach is burning bridges and giving up on any attempt to convince the other side. They'll still hold their views and they'll be forced into a bubble where their views are reinforced and are likely to become more extreme. Next election cycle could very well have people asking "how on earth did Trump get re-elected?" and the answer will be this style of attempted thought control. Even worse, it's burning bridges with people in the middle and in many cases even the ones that are on your side.
- mvid 9y ago
  People "in the middle" are not attending white power rallies.
  - malandrew 9y ago
    But there are people in the middle that believe in the constitutional right to assembly and association.
    - glumpyfish 9y ago
      Assemblies and associations with names like "Nazi uber" and "Hate van"? No thanks. Shut it down.
      - tedunangst 9y ago
        The constitution has very little to say about what assembly names are acceptable.
      - mc32 9y ago
        You know, that's a really hard one. On the one hand I don't want a bunch of hateful thugs running about rallying actual hate normally. I just have to imagine if I were in a non western country and they had hate rallies against westerners, for example. On the other hand, say in Venezuela or Cuba where politicians rally (or rallied) around hate for the US and US citizens, I mean, hateful as it is, should I want that suppressed forcefully? Maybe more worrying is who gets classified, do they go by the Dept of Justice tally? Or do they make their own assessment?
    - drewrv 9y ago
      Few in the middle believe these rights obligate a private company to host objectional material.
      - malandrew 9y ago
        I wholeheartedly agree that it doesn't obligate them, but many in the middle recognize that allowing a culture of intolerance (on either side) to take root and spread is not in our long term best interest. Sometimes slippery slopes are slippery.
      - abawany 9y ago
        You would be surprised how many people do not understand that the First Amendment applies to the government. A former manager, a seemingly rational person, once started to rant about pro-liberal censorship on Twitter (during the time that Yiannopoulos person was banned) and how that is a violation of his First Amendment rights. It took a few assertions on my part to finally get it through his head that that was not a valid argument on his part.
        Nuzzerino 9y ago
        When the only speech that is relevant has been reduced to that which is published or broadcast with mass media; and when nearly all such venues are policed by supporters of the left, in a private context; then the Democratic party only needs to set the narrative in order to discredit or silence their opponents in relevant venues. This to me, is a tactic to circumvent the first amendment, and is very much done so by a major political party. Perhaps it is you who actually does not understand.
        abawany 9y ago
        That is an unfair and polarizing take on my statement. It is also whataboutism. Newsmax, Fox, Breitbart, Limbaugh, Storm Front, etc. have more than enough outlets for the right wing to have their safe spaces. When Reddit was accused of setting the narrative to discredit their opponents in relevant venues, Voat provided a safe space for them to continue. The Democratic party has not controlled the narrative for a long long time. I know people sometimes need a bogeyman to have something to rail against but this isn't it. Again, First Amendment is to stop the US government from suppressing speech. If Voat had been shut down and the yellow bellies behind Breitbart arrested, you would have a case. But that hasn't happened. Instead the constant whining about 'fake news' by the current administration has been a far sinister and much more effective attempt at speech suppression by driving people into their various safe spaces.
    - salvar 9y ago
      Is someone depriving them of that right? All I see is a private company refusing to serve people that have broken an agreement they signed.
  - remarkEon 9y ago
    True, but they do get turned off when people and politicians who are seemingly "normal" people get branded an alt right neo Nazi (Jake Tapper was accused of this for challenging Linda Saraour). So, sure, the voter in Wisconsin who voted for Obama twice and pulled the lever for Trump this time isn't listening to Richard Spencer podcasts and larping at white power rallies - but as the Left continues to paint in broader strokes I see the likelihood of Trump winning again increasing.
splintercell 9y ago
> As a non-American, I find it quite worrying that American companies (specifically tech and SV ones) that operate globally are so eager to police politics on their platforms. It's because of the most liberal free speech clause in American constitution. Because it is not govt's responsibility to police speech, when speech gets too unbearable to most people, the companies have to step in or else they risk their platforms disappear.
msie 9y ago
While I don't agree with White power rallies (which should go without saying), they have as much right to service as any other political group. Equating White power groups with other groups is truly foolish. There is no debate about whether their views are beneficial or have any merit. They will not care about you if the situations were reversed.
Frondo 9y ago
"While I don't agree with White power rallies (which should go without saying), they have as much right to service as any other political group." And AirBNB has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, outside the protected classes of race, gender, etc. Political views aren't a protected class in the U.S. They can ban people for any old reason, and if there isn't any general backlash against banning white supremacists, there'll be no specific negative consequence to this action. The leap from "white supremacists not allowed" to "any non-extreme left belief not allowed" does not make sense.
Raynak 9y ago
> While I don't agree with White power rallies (which should go without saying), they have as much right to service as any other political group. So no right.
- legostormtroopr 9y ago
  Except when we let bad actors use that exact same justification, then its ok for a christian baker to not make a cake for a gay wedding.
  - mintplant 9y ago
    Gay isn't a political party or affiliation.
    - flukus 9y ago
      Gay marriage is a political position, they may not have been able to not serve someone because they were gay, but following the same reasoning as Airbnb here they should not have been compelled to make a gay wedding cake.
  - tedivm 9y ago
    We have protections- some based on the constitution, some based on individual state and federal laws, others based on common law precedent- that prevent discrimination against certain classes of individuals. In most cases those classes cover things that people have no control over (being born black isn't a choice, and neither is being born gay). Being a bigot (which is what white supremacists literally are, so this is not just some hyperbolic statement) is not a protected class. No one has to let the klan show up in uniform to their restaurant, or let people use their platform to promote hate speech. To be clear the click bade headline here really is awful- no one got banned for going to the rally, they got banned for hosting parties in the AirBNB rentals themselves. They used AirBNB to set up their hate events, and AirBNB put a stop to it.

flukus 9y ago

> StackOverflow already took an "open-borders, anti-Trump, or get out mentality", so its not a stretch to say that any right leaning belief, or more acurately any non-extreme left belief will be under fire from more and more companies. This approach is burning bridges and giving up on any attempt to convince the other side. They'll still hold their views and they'll be forced into a bubble where their views are reinforced and are likely to become more extreme. Next election cycle could very well have people asking "how on earth did Trump get re-elected?" and the answer will be this style of attempted thought control. Even worse, it's burning bridges with people in the middle and in many cases even the ones that are on your side.

mvid 9y ago
People "in the middle" are not attending white power rallies.
- malandrew 9y ago
  But there are people in the middle that believe in the constitutional right to assembly and association.
  - glumpyfish 9y ago
    Assemblies and associations with names like "Nazi uber" and "Hate van"? No thanks. Shut it down.
    - tedunangst 9y ago
      The constitution has very little to say about what assembly names are acceptable.
    - mc32 9y ago
      You know, that's a really hard one. On the one hand I don't want a bunch of hateful thugs running about rallying actual hate normally. I just have to imagine if I were in a non western country and they had hate rallies against westerners, for example. On the other hand, say in Venezuela or Cuba where politicians rally (or rallied) around hate for the US and US citizens, I mean, hateful as it is, should I want that suppressed forcefully? Maybe more worrying is who gets classified, do they go by the Dept of Justice tally? Or do they make their own assessment?
  - drewrv 9y ago
    Few in the middle believe these rights obligate a private company to host objectional material.
    - malandrew 9y ago
      I wholeheartedly agree that it doesn't obligate them, but many in the middle recognize that allowing a culture of intolerance (on either side) to take root and spread is not in our long term best interest. Sometimes slippery slopes are slippery.
    - abawany 9y ago
      You would be surprised how many people do not understand that the First Amendment applies to the government. A former manager, a seemingly rational person, once started to rant about pro-liberal censorship on Twitter (during the time that Yiannopoulos person was banned) and how that is a violation of his First Amendment rights. It took a few assertions on my part to finally get it through his head that that was not a valid argument on his part.
      - Nuzzerino 9y ago
        When the only speech that is relevant has been reduced to that which is published or broadcast with mass media; and when nearly all such venues are policed by supporters of the left, in a private context; then the Democratic party only needs to set the narrative in order to discredit or silence their opponents in relevant venues. This to me, is a tactic to circumvent the first amendment, and is very much done so by a major political party. Perhaps it is you who actually does not understand.
        abawany 9y ago
        That is an unfair and polarizing take on my statement. It is also whataboutism. Newsmax, Fox, Breitbart, Limbaugh, Storm Front, etc. have more than enough outlets for the right wing to have their safe spaces. When Reddit was accused of setting the narrative to discredit their opponents in relevant venues, Voat provided a safe space for them to continue. The Democratic party has not controlled the narrative for a long long time. I know people sometimes need a bogeyman to have something to rail against but this isn't it. Again, First Amendment is to stop the US government from suppressing speech. If Voat had been shut down and the yellow bellies behind Breitbart arrested, you would have a case. But that hasn't happened. Instead the constant whining about 'fake news' by the current administration has been a far sinister and much more effective attempt at speech suppression by driving people into their various safe spaces.
  - salvar 9y ago
    Is someone depriving them of that right? All I see is a private company refusing to serve people that have broken an agreement they signed.
- remarkEon 9y ago
  True, but they do get turned off when people and politicians who are seemingly "normal" people get branded an alt right neo Nazi (Jake Tapper was accused of this for challenging Linda Saraour). So, sure, the voter in Wisconsin who voted for Obama twice and pulled the lever for Trump this time isn't listening to Richard Spencer podcasts and larping at white power rallies - but as the Left continues to paint in broader strokes I see the likelihood of Trump winning again increasing.

splintercell 9y ago

> As a non-American, I find it quite worrying that American companies (specifically tech and SV ones) that operate globally are so eager to police politics on their platforms. It's because of the most liberal free speech clause in American constitution. Because it is not govt's responsibility to police speech, when speech gets too unbearable to most people, the companies have to step in or else they risk their platforms disappear.

msie 9y ago

While I don't agree with White power rallies (which should go without saying), they have as much right to service as any other political group. Equating White power groups with other groups is truly foolish. There is no debate about whether their views are beneficial or have any merit. They will not care about you if the situations were reversed.

Frondo 9y ago

"While I don't agree with White power rallies (which should go without saying), they have as much right to service as any other political group." And AirBNB has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason, outside the protected classes of race, gender, etc. Political views aren't a protected class in the U.S. They can ban people for any old reason, and if there isn't any general backlash against banning white supremacists, there'll be no specific negative consequence to this action. The leap from "white supremacists not allowed" to "any non-extreme left belief not allowed" does not make sense.

Raynak 9y ago

> While I don't agree with White power rallies (which should go without saying), they have as much right to service as any other political group. So no right.

legostormtroopr 9y ago
Except when we let bad actors use that exact same justification, then its ok for a christian baker to not make a cake for a gay wedding.
- mintplant 9y ago
  Gay isn't a political party or affiliation.
  - flukus 9y ago
    Gay marriage is a political position, they may not have been able to not serve someone because they were gay, but following the same reasoning as Airbnb here they should not have been compelled to make a gay wedding cake.
- tedivm 9y ago
  We have protections- some based on the constitution, some based on individual state and federal laws, others based on common law precedent- that prevent discrimination against certain classes of individuals. In most cases those classes cover things that people have no control over (being born black isn't a choice, and neither is being born gay). Being a bigot (which is what white supremacists literally are, so this is not just some hyperbolic statement) is not a protected class. No one has to let the klan show up in uniform to their restaurant, or let people use their platform to promote hate speech. To be clear the click bade headline here really is awful- no one got banned for going to the rally, they got banned for hosting parties in the AirBNB rentals themselves. They used AirBNB to set up their hate events, and AirBNB put a stop to it.