4 ms·

Then maybe we shouldn't accept unaccountable entities having the power of extradjudicial punishment.

by hackinthebochs 9y ago

danso 9y ago
What unaccountable entities? Airbnb is a company that is accountable to federal and local laws.
- hackinthebochs 9y ago
  Their choice of who to deny services to and why is unaccountable unless they're breaking specific laws. But the standard for punishment shouldn't be "negative" in this way; there should be positive proof and legal justification for punishment, rather than being free to punish barring any specific legal basis against it. And yes, Airbnb denying these guys access is punishment when you're a national entity and the only one of its kind.
  - danso 9y ago
    The legal justification for Airbnb or any other company to refuse service comes from what you state in your first sentence: they aren't breaking specific laws. Is there a law that private entities have no say in how they want to conduct their business? Should HN mods be taken to court every time they ban users and kill discussion threads? Airbnb is not "the only one of its kind." If you look up the origin story of the company, or do a google search for their legal battles with cities and states, you'll learn that they very much do have competing alternatives, including the entire hotel industry.
    - hackinthebochs 9y ago
      It's interesting when people do and don't cite legal justification as the final consideration. It should be clear that I'm not concerned with the current legality.
      - danso 9y ago
        It's interesting that you think "legal justification" is being used as the "final consideration", which would imply that legal justifications are ever final in a legal system that is meant to oversee the rights and well-being of 300 million different people. Moral beliefs change, governmental systems evolve, laws take time to pass. You're complaining about why there is or isn't a law, but then you want to take this debate out of the reality from which laws exist in the first place. That sounds about as fun and productive as arguing computational implementations with someone who doesn't believe in the relevance of time or physics. edit: replaced "computational theories" with "computational implementations"
        hackinthebochs 9y ago
        You seem to have misunderstood my point. My point was that people cite the law when the law happens to allow their preferred state of affairs, and cite morality when it doesn't. In this case, the worthwhile debate isn't what the law says, but what it should be. When you respond to my argument about what should or shouldn't be by citing the law, you've severely missed the point.
flunhat 9y ago
Repeat after me: private companies can regulate their platforms as they see fit, as long as they do not discriminate using the following criteria (which are enshrined in law): Race Color Religion National origin Age Sex Pregnancy Citizenship Familial status Disability status Genetic information If you want to add or remove a class, change the law. But political ideology is not, and should not be, a protected class. Private companies can decide if they want Nazis on their platforms, and this one doesn't. Take your libertarian fantasies elsewhere.
- Jach 9y ago
  Political ideology is rather highly hereditary, and if democracy benefits from a plurality of views, can you give a good reason why it shouldn't be protected? Especially when religion is?
  - danso 9y ago
    The reasons for why religion was explicitly protected in the First Amendment have some historical and political complexities. But I don't believe the reasoning, at the time the Constitution was written, nor today, had anything to do with hereditary probability. But ignoring historical reasons and realities, the contemporary moral argument for why religion deserves more protection than political ideology is because political ideology can be expressed (and protected) through participating in the political process. Whereas being a member of a religion is not seen as necessarily a political activity, especially in religions that do not engage in the political process.
- hackinthebochs 9y ago
  >as long as they do not discriminate using the following criteria (which are enshrined in law) And how long did it take for this to get enshrined into law, and how many people suffered unjustly in the mean time? Far better would have been for any discrimination of this sort to be illegal across the board, to avoid the need to build up enough political capital to create laws protecting vulnerable classes. That there is a specific set of classes that it is illegal to discriminate against is the problem: the next class that we currently don't recognize has to suffer until they're capable of building up enough political capital to change laws. Until then they're subject to the tyranny of the majority. > But political ideology is not, and should not be, a protected class This the substantive part of this discussion. Why do you think political ideology shouldn't be a protected class?

Then maybe we shouldn't accept unaccountable entities having the power of extradjudicial punishment.

danso 9y ago

What unaccountable entities? Airbnb is a company that is accountable to federal and local laws.

hackinthebochs 9y ago
Their choice of who to deny services to and why is unaccountable unless they're breaking specific laws. But the standard for punishment shouldn't be "negative" in this way; there should be positive proof and legal justification for punishment, rather than being free to punish barring any specific legal basis against it. And yes, Airbnb denying these guys access is punishment when you're a national entity and the only one of its kind.
- danso 9y ago
  The legal justification for Airbnb or any other company to refuse service comes from what you state in your first sentence: they aren't breaking specific laws. Is there a law that private entities have no say in how they want to conduct their business? Should HN mods be taken to court every time they ban users and kill discussion threads? Airbnb is not "the only one of its kind." If you look up the origin story of the company, or do a google search for their legal battles with cities and states, you'll learn that they very much do have competing alternatives, including the entire hotel industry.
  - hackinthebochs 9y ago
    It's interesting when people do and don't cite legal justification as the final consideration. It should be clear that I'm not concerned with the current legality.
    - danso 9y ago
      It's interesting that you think "legal justification" is being used as the "final consideration", which would imply that legal justifications are ever final in a legal system that is meant to oversee the rights and well-being of 300 million different people. Moral beliefs change, governmental systems evolve, laws take time to pass. You're complaining about why there is or isn't a law, but then you want to take this debate out of the reality from which laws exist in the first place. That sounds about as fun and productive as arguing computational implementations with someone who doesn't believe in the relevance of time or physics. edit: replaced "computational theories" with "computational implementations"
      - hackinthebochs 9y ago
        You seem to have misunderstood my point. My point was that people cite the law when the law happens to allow their preferred state of affairs, and cite morality when it doesn't. In this case, the worthwhile debate isn't what the law says, but what it should be. When you respond to my argument about what should or shouldn't be by citing the law, you've severely missed the point.

flunhat 9y ago

Repeat after me: private companies can regulate their platforms as they see fit, as long as they do not discriminate using the following criteria (which are enshrined in law): Race Color Religion National origin Age Sex Pregnancy Citizenship Familial status Disability status Genetic information If you want to add or remove a class, change the law. But political ideology is not, and should not be, a protected class. Private companies can decide if they want Nazis on their platforms, and this one doesn't. Take your libertarian fantasies elsewhere.

Jach 9y ago
Political ideology is rather highly hereditary, and if democracy benefits from a plurality of views, can you give a good reason why it shouldn't be protected? Especially when religion is?
- danso 9y ago
  The reasons for why religion was explicitly protected in the First Amendment have some historical and political complexities. But I don't believe the reasoning, at the time the Constitution was written, nor today, had anything to do with hereditary probability. But ignoring historical reasons and realities, the contemporary moral argument for why religion deserves more protection than political ideology is because political ideology can be expressed (and protected) through participating in the political process. Whereas being a member of a religion is not seen as necessarily a political activity, especially in religions that do not engage in the political process.
hackinthebochs 9y ago
>as long as they do not discriminate using the following criteria (which are enshrined in law) And how long did it take for this to get enshrined into law, and how many people suffered unjustly in the mean time? Far better would have been for any discrimination of this sort to be illegal across the board, to avoid the need to build up enough political capital to create laws protecting vulnerable classes. That there is a specific set of classes that it is illegal to discriminate against is the problem: the next class that we currently don't recognize has to suffer until they're capable of building up enough political capital to change laws. Until then they're subject to the tyranny of the majority. > But political ideology is not, and should not be, a protected class This the substantive part of this discussion. Why do you think political ideology shouldn't be a protected class?