4 ms·

So you may like Google's and GoDaddy's reaction in this case. be But try to think what could happen if this was the norm. Comcast could refuse to provide their

by mejin 9y ago

So you may like Google's and GoDaddy's reaction in this case. be But try to think what could happen if this was the norm. Comcast could refuse to provide their services to sites that talk about Google fiber. Google could remove Bing from 8.8.8.8. T-Mobile could block calls to Sprint. Some of what I listed are currently illegal, but are they in essence different? With rumors that the current administration might remove net neutrality, things like this will only encourage them to.

zimpenfish 9y ago
You're equating racists crowing over the death of someone at the hands of a racist (that was in all likelihood a reader of their site) with "sites that talk about Google fiber". I mean, I've seen some daft "whataboutisms" this past week but this is amazing.
- mejin 9y ago
  Lets say that in this case you are right. Who decides where to draw the line between talking about Google fiber and "crowing over the death of someone"? If we were in Italy in 1610 writing that the Sun was the center of the solar system would be hate speech. If we were in Germany in the 1930s the government would tell us that writing that Germans are not the master race is hate speech. If we were in the US in the 1950s saying that Communism is good would be hate speech. If we were in current China saying that the Tibet is not part of China could be considered hate speech. Maybe in a little while the current US administration will say that writing that climate change is caused by humans is hate speech. But more importantly, Google made the decision not due to laws that were created by the elected officials but rather based on how they felt. Imagine if a Catholic hospital refused service to anyone who suggested that people should read books from the banned book list. After all, the reason that they are on the banned book list is because someone decided that those books were hateful. I don't understand how this is whataboutism.
bryanrasmussen 9y ago
Every slope is slippery in theory, but in actuality there is a lot of friction.

by mejin 9y ago

zimpenfish 9y ago

You're equating racists crowing over the death of someone at the hands of a racist (that was in all likelihood a reader of their site) with "sites that talk about Google fiber". I mean, I've seen some daft "whataboutisms" this past week but this is amazing.

mejin 9y ago
Lets say that in this case you are right. Who decides where to draw the line between talking about Google fiber and "crowing over the death of someone"? If we were in Italy in 1610 writing that the Sun was the center of the solar system would be hate speech. If we were in Germany in the 1930s the government would tell us that writing that Germans are not the master race is hate speech. If we were in the US in the 1950s saying that Communism is good would be hate speech. If we were in current China saying that the Tibet is not part of China could be considered hate speech. Maybe in a little while the current US administration will say that writing that climate change is caused by humans is hate speech. But more importantly, Google made the decision not due to laws that were created by the elected officials but rather based on how they felt. Imagine if a Catholic hospital refused service to anyone who suggested that people should read books from the banned book list. After all, the reason that they are on the banned book list is because someone decided that those books were hateful. I don't understand how this is whataboutism.

bryanrasmussen 9y ago

Every slope is slippery in theory, but in actuality there is a lot of friction.