7 ms·

Yes, the racists themselves do not think they are objectionable in anyway, and obviously wouldn't characterize themselves as promoting hate. We, as a reasonabl

Yes, the racists themselves do not think they are objectionable in anyway, and obviously wouldn't characterize themselves as promoting hate. We, as a reasonable majority, can disagree with this assessment. That we do not have perfect information, and absolute agreement, is no reason for private organizations to not exercise their own rights to not associate with those they dislike. If this were the government at work... I'd agree that extremely high standards ought to be in place, but as is? No, I don't think organizations deserve protection since they are flimsy things, easily discarded when PR turns against them. None of the white supremacists is being banned as an individual, only specific institutions that they've chosen to raise up.

smsm42 9y ago
> We, as a reasonable majority, can disagree with this assessment. Who is "we"? Do you think the right to speak should be defined by the majority? Too bad the US was explicitly founded on the diametrically opposing principle. To be sure, they even explicitly wrote it in the constitution, that it is not how things are to be decided. But what they knew, anyway... > is no reason for private organizations to not exercise their own rights to not associate with those they dislike. They can exercise whatever they like. But then we get partisan war on the internet, instead of cooperation, with everybody hating everybody (there are many hot topic issues in politics, and once using access to infrastructure like DNS is politicized, there's no stopping of it). And where nobody can be sure that they won't be target of the unpersoning campaign next. It's not the internet I would like to see. Legally, of course, they are within their rights. But not everything that is legal is a good thing to do. Turning access to internet into political battleground is not a smart thing to do. It will hurt everybody. > None of the white supremacists is being banned as an individual, only specific institutions that they've chosen to raise up. How does it matter? If Google seizes domain from nazis as organization, because they wanted to, what prevents them from seizing domain from an individual person, who, say, has controversial political views? Or espouses controversial ideas that are outside current scientific consensus? Or merely criticizes Google management a bit more harshly than they'd like? It is a logical next step, if no pushback happens on this one, it would expand. People are all scared about content provides limiting access for commercial reasons, what about political reasons?

smsm42 9y ago

> We, as a reasonable majority, can disagree with this assessment. Who is "we"? Do you think the right to speak should be defined by the majority? Too bad the US was explicitly founded on the diametrically opposing principle. To be sure, they even explicitly wrote it in the constitution, that it is not how things are to be decided. But what they knew, anyway... > is no reason for private organizations to not exercise their own rights to not associate with those they dislike. They can exercise whatever they like. But then we get partisan war on the internet, instead of cooperation, with everybody hating everybody (there are many hot topic issues in politics, and once using access to infrastructure like DNS is politicized, there's no stopping of it). And where nobody can be sure that they won't be target of the unpersoning campaign next. It's not the internet I would like to see. Legally, of course, they are within their rights. But not everything that is legal is a good thing to do. Turning access to internet into political battleground is not a smart thing to do. It will hurt everybody. > None of the white supremacists is being banned as an individual, only specific institutions that they've chosen to raise up. How does it matter? If Google seizes domain from nazis as organization, because they wanted to, what prevents them from seizing domain from an individual person, who, say, has controversial political views? Or espouses controversial ideas that are outside current scientific consensus? Or merely criticizes Google management a bit more harshly than they'd like? It is a logical next step, if no pushback happens on this one, it would expand. People are all scared about content provides limiting access for commercial reasons, what about political reasons?