4 ms·

Obligatory reminder that this has nothing to do with freedom of speech; Joyent is a private company and may do business (or not) with whomever they choose.

Nathanba 8y ago
Obligatory reminder that free speech is an ideal that goes way past the american constitution.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  An ideal which doesn't place Gab's right to host any speech it wishes above Joyent's right not to.
  - emmelaich 8y ago
    Of course but ... nothing? > nothing to do with freedom of speech Of course it has something to do with freedom of speech. I agree with you and Joyent on their decision. But don't overreach.
    - jakelazaroff 8y ago
      In the sense of the "ideal" of freedom of speech, sure. In practice, almost everyone uses this to argue that some speech they don't like should be suppressed, e.g. Joyent should be compelled to host Gab. Literally no one is a free speech absolutist. In the sense that I originally meant it — the legal sense — this indeed has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
      - emmelaich 8y ago
        "compelled" ?! I think that people think it regrettable. That's all.
- core-questions 8y ago
  Its status as an ideal or even as a moral good is being attacked from all sides. We're forgetting the lessons of the last few hundred years, we're forgetting Voltaire, and we are adamant that the baby be thrown out with the bathwater. Do people think deplatforming changes minds? Of course it's well within Joyent's rights to do this, but the effect will not be a solution.
LordlyLad 8y ago
Obligatory reminder, that this has EVERYTHING to do with freedom of speech. Being a private company does not excuse this downright vicious attack on one of the only few platforms of freedom of speech on the internet today. First it was Microsoft severing ties and now Joyent & Paypal. And what a coincidence this starts happening just around the time an in-house Google presentation leaked naming Gab as one of their direct competitors. Gab is only the first to be targeted, what's stopping them from destroying every platform of freedom of speech that competes with their plans for "The Good Censor"
_pmf_ 8y ago
Obligatory reminder that a private baking business may be forced to bake gay wedding cakes and the last parr of your argument is moot.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- throwaway2016a 8y ago
  Obligatory reminder that protected class is different than free speech and political stance is not a protected class and sexual orientation is (or should be depending on where you live). Your analogy is moot. Whether you side with the baker or the wedding couple, comparing it with this is not a valid analogy.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - _pmf_ 8y ago
    > political stance is not a protected class and sexual orientation is (or should be depending on where you live) Despite what your pink haired friends might tell you, you cannot mutually substitute "political stance" and "Christian belief", as the supreme court confirms[0]. [0] https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/04/politics/masterpiece-colorado-gay-marriage-cake-supreme-court/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/04/politics/masterpiece-colo...

Nathanba 8y ago

Obligatory reminder that free speech is an ideal that goes way past the american constitution.

jakelazaroff 8y ago
An ideal which doesn't place Gab's right to host any speech it wishes above Joyent's right not to.
- emmelaich 8y ago
  Of course but ... nothing? > nothing to do with freedom of speech Of course it has something to do with freedom of speech. I agree with you and Joyent on their decision. But don't overreach.
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    In the sense of the "ideal" of freedom of speech, sure. In practice, almost everyone uses this to argue that some speech they don't like should be suppressed, e.g. Joyent should be compelled to host Gab. Literally no one is a free speech absolutist. In the sense that I originally meant it — the legal sense — this indeed has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
    - emmelaich 8y ago
      "compelled" ?! I think that people think it regrettable. That's all.
core-questions 8y ago
Its status as an ideal or even as a moral good is being attacked from all sides. We're forgetting the lessons of the last few hundred years, we're forgetting Voltaire, and we are adamant that the baby be thrown out with the bathwater. Do people think deplatforming changes minds? Of course it's well within Joyent's rights to do this, but the effect will not be a solution.

LordlyLad 8y ago

Obligatory reminder, that this has EVERYTHING to do with freedom of speech. Being a private company does not excuse this downright vicious attack on one of the only few platforms of freedom of speech on the internet today. First it was Microsoft severing ties and now Joyent & Paypal. And what a coincidence this starts happening just around the time an in-house Google presentation leaked naming Gab as one of their direct competitors. Gab is only the first to be targeted, what's stopping them from destroying every platform of freedom of speech that competes with their plans for "The Good Censor"

_pmf_ 8y ago

Obligatory reminder that a private baking business may be forced to bake gay wedding cakes and the last parr of your argument is moot.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
throwaway2016a 8y ago
Obligatory reminder that protected class is different than free speech and political stance is not a protected class and sexual orientation is (or should be depending on where you live). Your analogy is moot. Whether you side with the baker or the wedding couple, comparing it with this is not a valid analogy.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- _pmf_ 8y ago
  > political stance is not a protected class and sexual orientation is (or should be depending on where you live) Despite what your pink haired friends might tell you, you cannot mutually substitute "political stance" and "Christian belief", as the supreme court confirms[0]. [0] https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/04/politics/masterpiece-colorado-gay-marriage-cake-supreme-court/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2018/06/04/politics/masterpiece-colo...