13 ms·

> a culture where gun ownership is legally a human right? Oh, easy. Even if owning a gun were actually a "human right", it wouldn't mean that everyone must be

> a culture where gun ownership is legally a human right? Oh, easy. Even if owning a gun were actually a "human right", it wouldn't mean that everyone must be forced to allow you to speak your mind about this. The 2nd amendment isn't "right to bear arms and post videos on YT about it", and "talking about weapons" isn't a protected class. xkcd "showing the door" strip applies: https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/

drak0n1c 8y ago
There are convoluted and litigious anti-discrimination laws in many states. The question of whether a private business can simply show customers the door is not so easy - especially when the reason is based on matters of belief or identity. For California where these tech companies are based it looks like there was a ruling in favor of your argument: https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/baker-can-refuse-make-same-sex-wedding-cakes-judge-rules-n845501 https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/baker-can-refuse-mak...
- russdpale 8y ago
  Its pretty easy to get around these laws if you simply never state why you don't want to serve the customer. You don't have to serve anyone.
- ucaetano 8y ago
  > especially when the reason is based on matters of belief or identity. Yes, and that's why I talked about the protected categories in my post!
stcredzero 8y ago
Oh, easy. Even if owning a gun were actually a "human right" Self defense and self determination are human rights. xkcd "showing the door" strip applies That strip is one of the stupidest things Randall Monroe has ever done. For a society to work well, the letter of the law should be a minimum safety net. Someone assiduously supporting free speech only to the letter of the law is like someone assiduously being non-racist only to the letter of the law. As someone who grew up in a "hypo-minority" situation, let me tell you that people being non-racist only to the letter of the law can be pretty darned obnoxious. The future belongs to societies which can support a real marketplace of ideas. It's substantive testing of ideas which brings progress and creates wealth. If a society has to resort to oppression/force/intimidation to enforce its ideas, then it is effectively admitting it has lost to everyone but itself. The history of the 20th century shows this very clearly. It's repression and intellectual dishonesty which is the problem, and which creates the distrust that fuels the worst toxic extremists. It's this kind of extra-legal social repression that people once tried to use to keep homosexuals closeted and Jewish people out of the halls of power and influence. The future doesn't belong to merely those who can muster more force. It belongs to those who can muster the best principles.
- sheepmullet 8y ago
  > That strip is one of the stupidest things Randall Monroe has ever done. It's consistently misapplied. In the US we believe certain rights are inalienable and we should protect those rights. Every time that xkcd strip gets posted people treat it like it's a conversation ender - but all it is saying is people don't have to roll over for assholes. Here the clear assholes are Google and Facebook.
  - sverige 8y ago
    > Here the clear assholes are Google and Facebook. And the obvious problem for some people is that think they need their services and so there's no door to show them.
  - stcredzero 8y ago
    Every time that xkcd strip gets posted people treat it like it's a conversation ender - but all it is saying is people don't have to roll over for assholes. Really? The way I see it used most often, I see it as a call to have a soft totalitarianism of social media mediated social approval. That's not the kind of society I want, and it's not a free society. When the mainstream of society was homophobic, a soft totalitarianism of social approval was one of the major forms that oppression took. Don't confuse, "don't have to roll over for assholes," with, "it's my duty to be an asshole." No, either way, it's just being an asshole. In a free society, we should have the right to be an asshole, but in a great society, the majority of people should be convinced that being excellent to one and all is where it's at. Likewise, no country should roll over to military aggressors, but that shouldn't be conflated with some notion that it's then one country's duty to preempt all other military aggression by conquering everyone. It's the live and let live society which is the best.
    - ucaetano 8y ago
      > Really? The way I see it used most often, I see it as a call to have a soft totalitarianism of social media mediated social approval. Not the way I'm using, and it doesn't even have to do with social media. A TV station doesn't have to show "all content", and a local Alcoholics Anonymous doesn't have to accept someone who keeps telling others to drink alcohol. A "vegan discussion" community doesn't have to allow speech of someone advocating for meat consumption, and a "holocaust survivors" community doesn't have to accept speech from a denier. Private communities and forums are free to set their content policies. Saying "no discussions about how to make guns" is a content policy as any other. > In a free society, we should have the right to be an asshole Oh, you have the right to be an asshole, and I defend that. But that right doesn't mean that people can't show you the door from their private space. I could see an argument saying that social networks and YT are equivalent to a public square or any other public space. I don't agree with that, but that would be a reasonable argument. But even then, public spaces still have rules and ordinances on what you can and can't do.
bit2sarcastic 8y ago
I'd agree with that XKCD strip, as long as it's remembered that each community has the right to take a completely different stance. I think it's understood that Youtube is legally allowed to silence gun videos, but of course other communities are legally allowed to complain about Youtube's decision. Just like said community might legally gray out your post complaining about their complaints. So I really don't think pointing to that XKCD strip again really brings anything more than a touch of irony to the discussion.
- FundThrowaway 8y ago
  My only real concern with the view that the strip is stating is that allows a "loud" minority to literally or figuratively shut down or shout over the voices of any dissenters.
rubbingalcohol 8y ago
I specifically didn't address YouTube's legal right to censor anything and everything they want. That is (most likely) their prerogative, although there are some pending legal challenges. I was talking about the cultural danger of censoring certain types of speech, particularly when the matters at play involve inalienable rights enshrined in our Constitution. Again, if it is considered socially acceptable to censor pro-2A speech, we are a social regime-change away from justifying the censorship of pro-4A or 1A speech, or practically anything else. Did you not understand that? If you don't see the irony and danger here, it's only because you agree with the censors, but that only lasts as long as it lasts.
- s2g 8y ago
  What if I see it and I'm completely willing to accept that risk? What if I'm willing to accept that the government suddenly turn into a dystopian authoritarian nightmare that tortures and murders my family in front of me, if we get rid of the right to own guns. I'm totally willing to accept that.
  - gnarbarian 8y ago
    "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Ben Franklin
    - krapp 8y ago
      I'm sure you're aware that Ben Franklin was asking for more taxes to fund a stronger national defense against native American raids[0]. In other words, the "essential Liberty" he argued for was not liberty from the state, but the liberty of the state. If you're going to use that quote to make some sort of anti-statist, pro revolutionary argument, fair enough, it's a good quote... that's just not at all what the person you're quoting was actually saying. [0]https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-benjamin-franklins-quote-on-liberty-vs-security/ https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-be...
- ucaetano 8y ago
stale2002 8y ago
If a company wants to maintain the legal immunity for user generated content, then it MUST be content neutral. So fine YouTube can censor content if it likes, and in exchange every single time any one of its users posts anything illegal on the website, then police should go to the YouTube office and arrest someone. You either get the legal immunity by being content neutral or you don't get it at all, and now you are subject to arrest for your user's content.
- ucaetano 8y ago
  > If a company wants to maintain the legal immunity for user generated content, then it MUST be content neutral. Sources, please? Can you show me a court decision ruling that such companies can't have content policy? So, no, they don't have to be content neutral.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > If a company wants to maintain the legal immunity for user generated content, then it MUST be content neutral. Legally false; CDA Section 230 not only does not require neutrality for its “shall not be considered the publisher” safe harbor, it explicitly protects provider good faith actions to remove content that either the provider or a user finds “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected” as the “Good Samaritan” provision of the safe harbor. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 ; see (c)(1) and (c)(2)
  - stale2002 8y ago
    Sure it protects removing things that are obscene, lewd, or excessively violent. But it absolutely does not protect against viewpoint or political discrimination. Which is what everyone who uses the XKCD comic is referring to. The whole idea that a company can just censor certain viewpoints is false. They will lose their legal immunity if they do that. It is only very specific things, like lewd content, that they are explicitly allowed to censor.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Because he thinks that the notion that private banks create money as an account operation, and they search reserves after giving a credit, and not before, is too complicate for his readers. Sure it would, because free speech/press is a human right. OTOH, it doesn't mean that anyone else (including online services) must expend their resources relaying your speech, or that anyone else must listen to your speech, or that people must associate with you despite disliking your speech, because, again, freedom of speech, press, and association are all human rights.

drak0n1c 8y ago

There are convoluted and litigious anti-discrimination laws in many states. The question of whether a private business can simply show customers the door is not so easy - especially when the reason is based on matters of belief or identity. For California where these tech companies are based it looks like there was a ruling in favor of your argument: https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/baker-can-refuse-make-same-sex-wedding-cakes-judge-rules-n845501 https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/baker-can-refuse-mak...

russdpale 8y ago
Its pretty easy to get around these laws if you simply never state why you don't want to serve the customer. You don't have to serve anyone.
ucaetano 8y ago
> especially when the reason is based on matters of belief or identity. Yes, and that's why I talked about the protected categories in my post!

stcredzero 8y ago

Oh, easy. Even if owning a gun were actually a "human right" Self defense and self determination are human rights. xkcd "showing the door" strip applies That strip is one of the stupidest things Randall Monroe has ever done. For a society to work well, the letter of the law should be a minimum safety net. Someone assiduously supporting free speech only to the letter of the law is like someone assiduously being non-racist only to the letter of the law. As someone who grew up in a "hypo-minority" situation, let me tell you that people being non-racist only to the letter of the law can be pretty darned obnoxious. The future belongs to societies which can support a real marketplace of ideas. It's substantive testing of ideas which brings progress and creates wealth. If a society has to resort to oppression/force/intimidation to enforce its ideas, then it is effectively admitting it has lost to everyone but itself. The history of the 20th century shows this very clearly. It's repression and intellectual dishonesty which is the problem, and which creates the distrust that fuels the worst toxic extremists. It's this kind of extra-legal social repression that people once tried to use to keep homosexuals closeted and Jewish people out of the halls of power and influence. The future doesn't belong to merely those who can muster more force. It belongs to those who can muster the best principles.

sheepmullet 8y ago
> That strip is one of the stupidest things Randall Monroe has ever done. It's consistently misapplied. In the US we believe certain rights are inalienable and we should protect those rights. Every time that xkcd strip gets posted people treat it like it's a conversation ender - but all it is saying is people don't have to roll over for assholes. Here the clear assholes are Google and Facebook.
- sverige 8y ago
  > Here the clear assholes are Google and Facebook. And the obvious problem for some people is that think they need their services and so there's no door to show them.
- stcredzero 8y ago
  Every time that xkcd strip gets posted people treat it like it's a conversation ender - but all it is saying is people don't have to roll over for assholes. Really? The way I see it used most often, I see it as a call to have a soft totalitarianism of social media mediated social approval. That's not the kind of society I want, and it's not a free society. When the mainstream of society was homophobic, a soft totalitarianism of social approval was one of the major forms that oppression took. Don't confuse, "don't have to roll over for assholes," with, "it's my duty to be an asshole." No, either way, it's just being an asshole. In a free society, we should have the right to be an asshole, but in a great society, the majority of people should be convinced that being excellent to one and all is where it's at. Likewise, no country should roll over to military aggressors, but that shouldn't be conflated with some notion that it's then one country's duty to preempt all other military aggression by conquering everyone. It's the live and let live society which is the best.
  - ucaetano 8y ago
    > Really? The way I see it used most often, I see it as a call to have a soft totalitarianism of social media mediated social approval. Not the way I'm using, and it doesn't even have to do with social media. A TV station doesn't have to show "all content", and a local Alcoholics Anonymous doesn't have to accept someone who keeps telling others to drink alcohol. A "vegan discussion" community doesn't have to allow speech of someone advocating for meat consumption, and a "holocaust survivors" community doesn't have to accept speech from a denier. Private communities and forums are free to set their content policies. Saying "no discussions about how to make guns" is a content policy as any other. > In a free society, we should have the right to be an asshole Oh, you have the right to be an asshole, and I defend that. But that right doesn't mean that people can't show you the door from their private space. I could see an argument saying that social networks and YT are equivalent to a public square or any other public space. I don't agree with that, but that would be a reasonable argument. But even then, public spaces still have rules and ordinances on what you can and can't do.

bit2sarcastic 8y ago

I'd agree with that XKCD strip, as long as it's remembered that each community has the right to take a completely different stance. I think it's understood that Youtube is legally allowed to silence gun videos, but of course other communities are legally allowed to complain about Youtube's decision. Just like said community might legally gray out your post complaining about their complaints. So I really don't think pointing to that XKCD strip again really brings anything more than a touch of irony to the discussion.

FundThrowaway 8y ago
My only real concern with the view that the strip is stating is that allows a "loud" minority to literally or figuratively shut down or shout over the voices of any dissenters.

rubbingalcohol 8y ago

I specifically didn't address YouTube's legal right to censor anything and everything they want. That is (most likely) their prerogative, although there are some pending legal challenges. I was talking about the cultural danger of censoring certain types of speech, particularly when the matters at play involve inalienable rights enshrined in our Constitution. Again, if it is considered socially acceptable to censor pro-2A speech, we are a social regime-change away from justifying the censorship of pro-4A or 1A speech, or practically anything else. Did you not understand that? If you don't see the irony and danger here, it's only because you agree with the censors, but that only lasts as long as it lasts.

s2g 8y ago
What if I see it and I'm completely willing to accept that risk? What if I'm willing to accept that the government suddenly turn into a dystopian authoritarian nightmare that tortures and murders my family in front of me, if we get rid of the right to own guns. I'm totally willing to accept that.
- gnarbarian 8y ago
  "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Ben Franklin
  - krapp 8y ago
    I'm sure you're aware that Ben Franklin was asking for more taxes to fund a stronger national defense against native American raids[0]. In other words, the "essential Liberty" he argued for was not liberty from the state, but the liberty of the state. If you're going to use that quote to make some sort of anti-statist, pro revolutionary argument, fair enough, it's a good quote... that's just not at all what the person you're quoting was actually saying. [0]https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-benjamin-franklins-quote-on-liberty-vs-security/ https://techcrunch.com/2014/02/14/how-the-world-butchered-be...
ucaetano 8y ago

stale2002 8y ago

If a company wants to maintain the legal immunity for user generated content, then it MUST be content neutral. So fine YouTube can censor content if it likes, and in exchange every single time any one of its users posts anything illegal on the website, then police should go to the YouTube office and arrest someone. You either get the legal immunity by being content neutral or you don't get it at all, and now you are subject to arrest for your user's content.

ucaetano 8y ago
> If a company wants to maintain the legal immunity for user generated content, then it MUST be content neutral. Sources, please? Can you show me a court decision ruling that such companies can't have content policy? So, no, they don't have to be content neutral.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> If a company wants to maintain the legal immunity for user generated content, then it MUST be content neutral. Legally false; CDA Section 230 not only does not require neutrality for its “shall not be considered the publisher” safe harbor, it explicitly protects provider good faith actions to remove content that either the provider or a user finds “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected” as the “Good Samaritan” provision of the safe harbor. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230 ; see (c)(1) and (c)(2)
- stale2002 8y ago
  Sure it protects removing things that are obscene, lewd, or excessively violent. But it absolutely does not protect against viewpoint or political discrimination. Which is what everyone who uses the XKCD comic is referring to. The whole idea that a company can just censor certain viewpoints is false. They will lose their legal immunity if they do that. It is only very specific things, like lewd content, that they are explicitly allowed to censor.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Because he thinks that the notion that private banks create money as an account operation, and they search reserves after giving a credit, and not before, is too complicate for his readers. Sure it would, because free speech/press is a human right. OTOH, it doesn't mean that anyone else (including online services) must expend their resources relaying your speech, or that anyone else must listen to your speech, or that people must associate with you despite disliking your speech, because, again, freedom of speech, press, and association are all human rights.