5 ms·
They're a payment processor. If you believe in a non-discriminatory economy, where anyone with a legal, useful service or skill should be able to collect paymen
by kakarot 8y ago
They're a payment processor. If you believe in a non-discriminatory economy, where anyone with a legal, useful service or skill should be able to collect payment for it, then you simply can't have this position.
Payment processors must follow the law like anyone else and have no obligation to process payments for illegal services, but we can't start mass boycotting them based on the clients they legally do business with. That's a huge incentive for discriminatory practices which are at the behest of the mob.
- Pfhreak 8y agoI disagree. I doubt we'll get to any sort of shared position via internet forum, I was simply pointing out that the parent comment was objectively false.
- tptacek 8y agoLots of people don't accept your premise that white supremacists deserve FRAND terms for access to commercial hosting providers. I'd go so far as to describe it as the mainstream opinion. So: they can quite simply have that position.
- kakarot 8y agoThis isn't an issue of what should be legal. It's an ethical issue.
- tptacek 8y agoIf it's ethical, it's even more baffling why this would be a problem; providing services to enable and amplify white nationalism is clearly unethical.
- kakarot 8y agoCensorship is unethical because it's a giant slippery slope of subjectivity. Are we really calling Alex Jones a white supremacist?
- pvg 8y agoCensorship is unethical because it's a giant slippery slope of subjectivity What does that actually mean? How would you translate it into any sort of policy short of complete and absolute non-regulation of speech (or, really, anything if you just pick something other than 'censorship' as a scare-word). As to Jones, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones#White_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones#White_genocide
- kakarot 8y ago"First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak for me." — Martin Niemöller Alex Jones is a paranoid lunatic, misinterpreting a very real assault on demographics like the straight white male as full-on white genocide, as well as many unrelated issues like immigration, but that doesn't really make him a white supremacist. Being afraid that your demographic is being targeted doesn't make you a supremacist. There are many minority demographics right now who validly feel that way. Calling for the extermination of other races would make him a white supremacist. Alex Jones being a white supremacist is a false narrative perpetuated by the informal group of gatekeepers trying to silence his platform. > How would you translate it into any sort of policy short of complete and absolute non-regulation of speech? That's false absolutism. You cannot dismiss censorship as a "scare-word". It's scary for a damn good reason. Right now they're only coming for the socialists. Soon they will come for someone you care about, and then I wonder if you will still be so readily apologetic for the information gatekeepers of the new era.
- pvg 8y agoSweet, let's engage in Learned Quote Battle! "How now, how now, chop-logic! What is this?" --William Shakespeare a very real assault on demographics like the straight white male Oh! Never mind, I'll see myself out.
- detcader 8y agoIf you're familiar with Jesse Singal's journalistic work I think it's straightforward for us to consider what was meant above there. The question is of "Fascism" Scope Creep, no? Accepting that big tech companies can decide what is and isn't ethical to "amplify" is going to quash some issues where all sides need to be heard and communicate with each other, into a one-dimensional conception of whatever the most popular liberal people think is over the line into "fascism" at a given historical moment. With millions of dollars a day of US military aid going to Israel, for one thing, and state officials pushing to ban boycotts explicitly in law, I don't think it's silly to worry about this. I'll say I honestly don't know if Stripe and hosting sites dropping white nationalists sets such a uniformally bad precedent. The material reality of it is pretty good. I'm also not going to treat objectors who talk about free speech like children.
- tptacek 8y agoI’m pretty familiar with Singal and doubt he has much of a problem with Gab getting booted from Godaddy. Want me to ask him?
- detcader 8y agoI wasn't really invoking his opinions on Gab specifically, but I would be curious to know them. My point was more like: What happens to journalists like Singal when any writing deviating from to the most mainstream of progressive frameworks of thought endangers the resources/finances of the outlet publishing it? Have you Googled his full name?
- tptacek 8y agoYeah, we follow each other on Twitter. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, but I'll ask what he thinks about Gab. Gab isn't a site that respectfully questions orthodoxy regarding trans issues. It's white supremacist Twitter. If it were me in his shoes, I'd find the comparison a little offensive, and also feel like it affirmed and amplified my critics.
- kakarot 8y agoThe Overton Window is moving too quickly these days for us to be making judgements on deplatformization based on what is and isn't something the average person wants to see.
- tptacek 8y agoI don't know what this is supposed to mean. The ethical status of white supremacist organizing hasn't changed.