5 ms·

Seeing as patreon, paypal, visa refuse clients because of their beliefs (alt-right) or their sexuality (which would be illegal in Europe), the US do not have fr

Seeing as patreon, paypal, visa refuse clients because of their beliefs (alt-right) or their sexuality (which would be illegal in Europe), the US do not have free speech either

morganvachon 8y ago
The US does have freedom of speech at the federal government level; i.e. the government is not supposed to repress speech. However, it appears the parent is intentionally conflating freedom of speech and a private entity's right to censor their own platform. One has literally nothing to do with the other; private entities in the US and abroad are largely free to run their platforms as they choose, including censoring content that violates their rules, and banning users who don't comply. The parent likely knows this, and yet chooses to deliberately misinform in their comment.
- leereeves 8y ago
  Freedom of speech is a general concept. It's not limited to only government censorship.
- ibeckermayer 8y ago
  Are we really going to pretend that financial institutions are “private” enterprises? I recall the taxpayer being forced to bail them out for their incompetence. They are effectively government institutions and should be regulated as such.
  - _red 8y ago
    Its more than that, banking is a legally granted monopoly license (ie. Federal Reserve). So they are enjoying all the perks of being government backed (protected monopoly + full bailout privileges), yet must endure none of the restrictions of a government agency. Best of both worlds.
    - mruts 8y ago
      Banks operate under a ton of restrictions. Such as Dodd-Frank. It's pretty ironic that the solution for being "too big to fail" was to make the banks even bigger while also placing restrictions of many types of trading. What should have been done is just remove the FDIC insurance and let banks do whatever the fuck they want. The only way to learn that risk management is important is if you see some of your competitors as road kill on the side of the road.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    If you're going to abuse the definition of public vs. private that much, receiving a child tax credit makes me a publicly owned entity, which means I can't tell my kids not to be rude to their mother. TARP wound up making a small profit in the end, incidentally.
  - briandear 8y ago
    Not to get off topic here, but banks were bailed out because they made subprime housing loans that went bad, however it was the government that compelled those loans in the first place. By doing what the government demanded (increasing home loans to people who didn’t have the proper credit,) the banks crashed. Government policy and housing “activists” created the housing collapse. https://fee.org/articles/how-the-federal-government-created-the-subprime-mortgage-crisis/ https://fee.org/articles/how-the-federal-government-created-...
- paulnechifor 8y ago
  You are conflating freedom of speech with the US first amendment. Freedom of speech is a principle. It applies to private companies as well. Voltaire didn't say "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, so long as it's not on Twitter, Facebook, &c in which case I'll beat you to death myself because private companies are entitled to censor their own platforms". What's the point of having free speech protected by the government if in practice no company will allow you to practice your free speech?
  - kgwxd 8y ago
    Private companies can't arrest you, put you on trial, sentence you to prison, or kill you. Government can. That's the point.
    - heavenlyblue 8y ago
      But they can use their opinion in such a way that I am not accepted by the majority of other companies in the sphere.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Private companies can't arrest you, put you on trial, sentence you to prison, or kill you In many US jurisdictions they can do the first (and so can essentially everyone else.) They also do the last, often without legal consequences, though not as the outcome of a judicial process (but in civilized countries, government can't do that as the outcome of a judicial process, either.)
    - jsonne 8y ago
      I'm not picking on you in particular, but this is a rather annoying argument that people bring up that is utterly nonsensical. Companies can and do cause harm to individuals. No they can't put you in jail but they can otherwise isolate you from society via making you unemployable, revealing personal information to social embarrass you, or barring you from essential services to function in modern society. To pretend they aren't is to be in denial to the scope and power and of modern companies. I say all this as an ardent capitalist for what it's worth.
SquareWheel 8y ago
They might have free speech, but they have no means of getting paid for their speech.
anth_anm 8y ago
If the right doesn't like being censored by private corporations, maybe they shouldn't make deregulation and allowance of this sort of behaviour a core part of their beliefs. Me, I love seeing these guys deplatformed.

Seeing as patreon, paypal, visa refuse clients because of their beliefs (alt-right) or their sexuality (which would be illegal in Europe), the US do not have free speech either

morganvachon 8y ago

The US does have freedom of speech at the federal government level; i.e. the government is not supposed to repress speech. However, it appears the parent is intentionally conflating freedom of speech and a private entity's right to censor their own platform. One has literally nothing to do with the other; private entities in the US and abroad are largely free to run their platforms as they choose, including censoring content that violates their rules, and banning users who don't comply. The parent likely knows this, and yet chooses to deliberately misinform in their comment.

leereeves 8y ago
Freedom of speech is a general concept. It's not limited to only government censorship.
ibeckermayer 8y ago
Are we really going to pretend that financial institutions are “private” enterprises? I recall the taxpayer being forced to bail them out for their incompetence. They are effectively government institutions and should be regulated as such.
- _red 8y ago
  Its more than that, banking is a legally granted monopoly license (ie. Federal Reserve). So they are enjoying all the perks of being government backed (protected monopoly + full bailout privileges), yet must endure none of the restrictions of a government agency. Best of both worlds.
  - mruts 8y ago
    Banks operate under a ton of restrictions. Such as Dodd-Frank. It's pretty ironic that the solution for being "too big to fail" was to make the banks even bigger while also placing restrictions of many types of trading. What should have been done is just remove the FDIC insurance and let banks do whatever the fuck they want. The only way to learn that risk management is important is if you see some of your competitors as road kill on the side of the road.
- ceejayoz 8y ago
  If you're going to abuse the definition of public vs. private that much, receiving a child tax credit makes me a publicly owned entity, which means I can't tell my kids not to be rude to their mother. TARP wound up making a small profit in the end, incidentally.
- briandear 8y ago
  Not to get off topic here, but banks were bailed out because they made subprime housing loans that went bad, however it was the government that compelled those loans in the first place. By doing what the government demanded (increasing home loans to people who didn’t have the proper credit,) the banks crashed. Government policy and housing “activists” created the housing collapse. https://fee.org/articles/how-the-federal-government-created-the-subprime-mortgage-crisis/ https://fee.org/articles/how-the-federal-government-created-...
paulnechifor 8y ago
You are conflating freedom of speech with the US first amendment. Freedom of speech is a principle. It applies to private companies as well. Voltaire didn't say "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it, so long as it's not on Twitter, Facebook, &c in which case I'll beat you to death myself because private companies are entitled to censor their own platforms". What's the point of having free speech protected by the government if in practice no company will allow you to practice your free speech?
- kgwxd 8y ago
  Private companies can't arrest you, put you on trial, sentence you to prison, or kill you. Government can. That's the point.
  - heavenlyblue 8y ago
    But they can use their opinion in such a way that I am not accepted by the majority of other companies in the sphere.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Private companies can't arrest you, put you on trial, sentence you to prison, or kill you In many US jurisdictions they can do the first (and so can essentially everyone else.) They also do the last, often without legal consequences, though not as the outcome of a judicial process (but in civilized countries, government can't do that as the outcome of a judicial process, either.)
  - jsonne 8y ago
    I'm not picking on you in particular, but this is a rather annoying argument that people bring up that is utterly nonsensical. Companies can and do cause harm to individuals. No they can't put you in jail but they can otherwise isolate you from society via making you unemployable, revealing personal information to social embarrass you, or barring you from essential services to function in modern society. To pretend they aren't is to be in denial to the scope and power and of modern companies. I say all this as an ardent capitalist for what it's worth.

SquareWheel 8y ago

They might have free speech, but they have no means of getting paid for their speech.

anth_anm 8y ago

If the right doesn't like being censored by private corporations, maybe they shouldn't make deregulation and allowance of this sort of behaviour a core part of their beliefs. Me, I love seeing these guys deplatformed.