4 ms·

Yes, that's sort of true, but imagine that some company openly claims that they are not going to hire women or black people or Muslims. You also shouldn't tell

Yes, that's sort of true, but imagine that some company openly claims that they are not going to hire women or black people or Muslims. You also shouldn't tell private company who they should hire, yet my guess that if any company started doing this it would stir some controversy and probably wouldn't stay unnoticed.

krapp 7y ago
>You also shouldn't tell private company who they should hire, yet my guess that if any company started doing this it would stir some controversy and probably wouldn't stay unnoticed. It would be illegal for companies to do this, and governments certainly can tell private companies not to discriminate against certain classes when hiring. Google, meanwhile, is not breaking the law by choosing what content is hosted on their platform and under what circumstances. You're presenting a false dichotomy here because Google is not a state, it is a private company, and because content creators are not a government whose laws Google must follow, but rather are themselves bound by Google's terms of service, which grant Google absolute, irrevocable and arbitrary power over their accounts, content, visibility and monetization.
- andrepd 7y ago
  If they started banning all Muslims from their platform, would you be okay with it? I guess not, so the power is hardly "absolute, irrevocable, and arbitrary". Which is a ridiculous proposition. We absolutely can legislate about what private corporations can and cannot do.
  - krapp 7y ago
    >If they started banning all Muslims from their platform, would you be okay with it? No, but again, that would already be illegal, whereas Google demonetizing content due to violence is not. Moderating or banning content for any reason is not equivalent to discrimination against a protected class, but fair enough - "absolute, irrevocable, and arbitrary" regarding content and accounts, where legal. My characterization of the rights Google has over user supplied content versus the rights users have over Google is still far more accurate than not.

krapp 7y ago

>You also shouldn't tell private company who they should hire, yet my guess that if any company started doing this it would stir some controversy and probably wouldn't stay unnoticed. It would be illegal for companies to do this, and governments certainly can tell private companies not to discriminate against certain classes when hiring. Google, meanwhile, is not breaking the law by choosing what content is hosted on their platform and under what circumstances. You're presenting a false dichotomy here because Google is not a state, it is a private company, and because content creators are not a government whose laws Google must follow, but rather are themselves bound by Google's terms of service, which grant Google absolute, irrevocable and arbitrary power over their accounts, content, visibility and monetization.

andrepd 7y ago
If they started banning all Muslims from their platform, would you be okay with it? I guess not, so the power is hardly "absolute, irrevocable, and arbitrary". Which is a ridiculous proposition. We absolutely can legislate about what private corporations can and cannot do.
- krapp 7y ago
  >If they started banning all Muslims from their platform, would you be okay with it? No, but again, that would already be illegal, whereas Google demonetizing content due to violence is not. Moderating or banning content for any reason is not equivalent to discrimination against a protected class, but fair enough - "absolute, irrevocable, and arbitrary" regarding content and accounts, where legal. My characterization of the rights Google has over user supplied content versus the rights users have over Google is still far more accurate than not.