4 ms·

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 ens

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?

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?