3 ms·
> ... but really, this comes down to what Google (et al) considers criminal incitement to violence, We have courts and a legal process to decide such things. I
by amirmc 9y ago
> ... but really, this comes down to what Google (et al) considers criminal incitement to violence,
We have courts and a legal process to decide such things. I find it strange and worrying that so many in this thread are happy to let a huge yet private and unaccountable entity have such power.
- oliwarner 9y agoWhy do things need to be legally decided for Google's private owners to exercise their first amendment rights to tell violent fascists to expletive off? People in this thread are happy with the situation because a) fuck fascists and b) DS can still hook their domains up via almost any registrar on the planet. I'm sure they'll find a fascist-friendly one somewhere and if they don't, they're free —funds allowing— to set their own up via ICANN. Google's unique (and monopolous) power is in its influence; through search listing and ranking, and to a much lesser extent, through Google play presence. While we might need to have a conversation about what they are allowed to do in that respect, as far as I can tell neither of those apply here.
- dogma1138 9y agoIf Google dropped a BLM, or LGBT group would you still being saying 1st amendment?
- oliwarner 9y agoLegally speaking, I'm sure I would. These are protected classes but that doesn't put them beyond criticism. Whatever Google did would likely have ramifications on people doing business with them. Just as Google has can stop serving fascist hate groups, you can stop using them if they do something you don't like. But what are you saying? Are you saying that Google should have no say what it does with its resources?