7 ms·

Private companies draw those lines, as they always have done. This is GoFundMe. They also have a ToS that specifies what you're allowed to have on their service

Private companies draw those lines, as they always have done. This is GoFundMe. They also have a ToS that specifies what you're allowed to have on their service, so they've done this for as long as that ToS has existed. Anti-vax people can use some other service or create their own.

RobertRoberts 8y ago
This is gimmick I keep hearing "Private companies", that is your slippery slope. The government doesn't _need_ to censoring anything if they get the companies to it for them. That is fascism.
- bilbo0s 8y ago
  >That is fascism... So is telling private companies what they have to do with their property.
  - RobertRoberts 8y ago
    Yes, I agree, it goes both ways. 'Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power' ― Benito Mussolini
- clucas 8y ago
  Here's an alternative slippery slope: I run a site that makes it really easy to connect people who want to give money and people who have some reason they think they should have money. I decide that I don't want people who are raising money for anti-vax campaigns on my site, so I ban them. Then, someone comes in and says "no no, you can't do that, you have to allow them to use your site." Who gets to decide that, and by what criteria? What if I also decide I don't want to allow anti-government militias to use my site to buy firearms? As soon as you force a private entity to do business with people even if they don't want to, you're also on a slippery slope. ...or maybe you're not. Maybe there are plenty of plaes to draw these lines, like, "you can't refuse service to people if you are doing so based on certain categories, like race, sex, religious belief, etc. because we as a nation have decided it's important." I think we should allow companies like GoFundMe to ban whomever they like, unless they are discriminating based on the protected categories that are already clearly defined.
  - RobertRoberts 8y ago
    I agree with you, GoFundMe should have the freedom to do whatever they want. I am just pointing out that there is no longer any real censorship any more that we are legally protected against simply because the government is never involved directly in it. So simply repeating the mantra "business can't censor" isn't really true in a strict analysis. Consider that the baker who didn't want to bake a cake with words on it that he objected to was sued (successfully). But I saw almost no support for _that_ business's freedom to choose. Censorship has turned into a mob tool of control.
    - openasocket 8y ago
      > I am just pointing out that there is no longer any real censorship any more that we are legally protected against Businesses have been refusing to do business with people and people have been refusing to use businesses for a very long time, this isn't some new thing. And we actually do have protections, enshrined in civil rights legislation. You can't be denied service because of your race, gender, religion, and a couple other categories depending on the service and the state. But your stance on vaccinations is not a protected category. If you want to expand the protected categories, that's a different conversation. > Consider that the baker who didn't want to bake a cake with words on it that he objected to was sued (successfully). Yeah, because sexual orientation is a protected class. > Censorship has turned into a mob controlled tool of control. You're describing a boycott. It's a form of protest. It's "mob controlled" in the same sense as all other forms of protest
- lovehashbrowns 8y ago
  So if the government mandates it, then it's specifically the government censoring things. If the company chooses to do so, then this is a non-issue. It's no different than YCombinator banning someone who decides to spam the comments. Or Youtube banning a channel because it's posting porn videos. This is literally the same concept as that, except it's GoFundMe with anti-vax.

RobertRoberts 8y ago

This is gimmick I keep hearing "Private companies", that is your slippery slope. The government doesn't _need_ to censoring anything if they get the companies to it for them. That is fascism.

bilbo0s 8y ago
>That is fascism... So is telling private companies what they have to do with their property.
- RobertRoberts 8y ago
  Yes, I agree, it goes both ways. 'Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power' ― Benito Mussolini
clucas 8y ago
Here's an alternative slippery slope: I run a site that makes it really easy to connect people who want to give money and people who have some reason they think they should have money. I decide that I don't want people who are raising money for anti-vax campaigns on my site, so I ban them. Then, someone comes in and says "no no, you can't do that, you have to allow them to use your site." Who gets to decide that, and by what criteria? What if I also decide I don't want to allow anti-government militias to use my site to buy firearms? As soon as you force a private entity to do business with people even if they don't want to, you're also on a slippery slope. ...or maybe you're not. Maybe there are plenty of plaes to draw these lines, like, "you can't refuse service to people if you are doing so based on certain categories, like race, sex, religious belief, etc. because we as a nation have decided it's important." I think we should allow companies like GoFundMe to ban whomever they like, unless they are discriminating based on the protected categories that are already clearly defined.
- RobertRoberts 8y ago
  I agree with you, GoFundMe should have the freedom to do whatever they want. I am just pointing out that there is no longer any real censorship any more that we are legally protected against simply because the government is never involved directly in it. So simply repeating the mantra "business can't censor" isn't really true in a strict analysis. Consider that the baker who didn't want to bake a cake with words on it that he objected to was sued (successfully). But I saw almost no support for _that_ business's freedom to choose. Censorship has turned into a mob tool of control.
  - openasocket 8y ago
    > I am just pointing out that there is no longer any real censorship any more that we are legally protected against Businesses have been refusing to do business with people and people have been refusing to use businesses for a very long time, this isn't some new thing. And we actually do have protections, enshrined in civil rights legislation. You can't be denied service because of your race, gender, religion, and a couple other categories depending on the service and the state. But your stance on vaccinations is not a protected category. If you want to expand the protected categories, that's a different conversation. > Consider that the baker who didn't want to bake a cake with words on it that he objected to was sued (successfully). Yeah, because sexual orientation is a protected class. > Censorship has turned into a mob controlled tool of control. You're describing a boycott. It's a form of protest. It's "mob controlled" in the same sense as all other forms of protest
lovehashbrowns 8y ago
So if the government mandates it, then it's specifically the government censoring things. If the company chooses to do so, then this is a non-issue. It's no different than YCombinator banning someone who decides to spam the comments. Or Youtube banning a channel because it's posting porn videos. This is literally the same concept as that, except it's GoFundMe with anti-vax.