3 ms·

I am finding the same thing in corporate culture. If you identify problems in the corporation, the solution isn't to solve the problems, it's to isolate and vil

I am finding the same thing in corporate culture. If you identify problems in the corporation, the solution isn't to solve the problems, it's to isolate and vilify the person who identifies the problem. Fire that person and there's no more problem.

ineedasername 7y ago
In your example the people themselves are not the problem. If you change the example to be a person who is themselves a toxic, disruptive individual, then merely isolating and vilifying isn't enough: You fire them. "Deplatforming" is a close equivalent. I used to edit a small newspaper. It wasn't uncommon (a few times a year) to receive advertising orders from Holocaust deniers. I did not run those ads. Maybe that was deplatforming, but I don't think it was wrong, or against the interests of free speech to do so.
- aphextim 7y ago
  Maybe. We've seen hosting providers banning sites. https://tech.slashdot.org/story/17/08/14/1344239/godaddy-expels-neo-nazi-site-over-article-on-charlottesville-victim https://tech.slashdot.org/story/17/08/14/1344239/godaddy-exp... We've also seen registrars canceling domain registrations. https://tech.slashdot.org/story/17/08/14/1830223/google-cancels-domain-registration-for-neo-nazi-website-daily-stormer https://tech.slashdot.org/story/17/08/14/1830223/google-canc... Should they have this power? https://www.newsweek.com/it-legal-hosting-companies-ban-hate-sites-654618 https://www.newsweek.com/it-legal-hosting-companies-ban-hate... By analogy, what if the electric utilities started banning people from using electricity based on their speech? Or maybe gas stations refusing to sell you fuel? How far do we let that go? Boycotts are great and all, but the power of the internet is that it gives everyone a voice. So today, are we so dependent on that voice that the 1st amendment needs to apply to it? Or is it okay to limit politically incorrect opinions to meatspace and save the internet for only approved speech?
  - ineedasername 7y ago
    Media platforms are the inherent venue for this content. Utility companies are not. There's a strong difference between a media platform denying him access and a basic utility doing the same. In fact their are laws (in the US at least) governing this sort of thing with respect to Utilities. If you want to pull in something like the electric utility, you need to change the example from a trollish media figure to someone messing with the power grid via their utility hookup. Doing that might very well get you banned.

ineedasername 7y ago

In your example the people themselves are not the problem. If you change the example to be a person who is themselves a toxic, disruptive individual, then merely isolating and vilifying isn't enough: You fire them. "Deplatforming" is a close equivalent. I used to edit a small newspaper. It wasn't uncommon (a few times a year) to receive advertising orders from Holocaust deniers. I did not run those ads. Maybe that was deplatforming, but I don't think it was wrong, or against the interests of free speech to do so.

aphextim 7y ago
Maybe. We've seen hosting providers banning sites. https://tech.slashdot.org/story/17/08/14/1344239/godaddy-expels-neo-nazi-site-over-article-on-charlottesville-victim https://tech.slashdot.org/story/17/08/14/1344239/godaddy-exp... We've also seen registrars canceling domain registrations. https://tech.slashdot.org/story/17/08/14/1830223/google-cancels-domain-registration-for-neo-nazi-website-daily-stormer https://tech.slashdot.org/story/17/08/14/1830223/google-canc... Should they have this power? https://www.newsweek.com/it-legal-hosting-companies-ban-hate-sites-654618 https://www.newsweek.com/it-legal-hosting-companies-ban-hate... By analogy, what if the electric utilities started banning people from using electricity based on their speech? Or maybe gas stations refusing to sell you fuel? How far do we let that go? Boycotts are great and all, but the power of the internet is that it gives everyone a voice. So today, are we so dependent on that voice that the 1st amendment needs to apply to it? Or is it okay to limit politically incorrect opinions to meatspace and save the internet for only approved speech?
- ineedasername 7y ago
  Media platforms are the inherent venue for this content. Utility companies are not. There's a strong difference between a media platform denying him access and a basic utility doing the same. In fact their are laws (in the US at least) governing this sort of thing with respect to Utilities. If you want to pull in something like the electric utility, you need to change the example from a trollish media figure to someone messing with the power grid via their utility hookup. Doing that might very well get you banned.