4 ms·

I am hardly an anti-vaxxer, but I really don't like companies like Mailchimp taking up a position for me.

fgonzag 7y ago
Why? It isn't the government, it isn't protected speech. A company can take a stand for whatever moral position it feels is correct, they are protected by free speech, just like anti vaxxers are protected.
- tdurden 7y ago
  Because in this case it may be fine, maybe not in the next. I am not saying companies can't do this, it's just a slippery slope.
- aiyodev 7y ago
  Where did this nonsense get started? Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are rights that everyone has because they are human. The first amendment is one protection of these rights that prevents the violation of these rights by the US government. People still have freedom of speech and freedom of expression when dealing with non-government organizations. It’s a responsibility of these organization to respect these rights. Customers should refuse to do business with companies that do not.
  - dngray 7y ago
    > Customers should refuse to do business with companies that do not. Except that anti vaxxers are usually mentally ill themselves and are incapable of building product or service, particularly in the technology industry. That's why we see a lot of alt-right or anti vax type people on platforms which consider their behavior hostile after it gets them bad press. Beforehand they usually turn a blind eye. It is an attempt to get out in front of regulation which will be inevitable if companies do nothing about it. Also, not everyone on the internet lives in America, which means not everyone has freedom of speech.
    - aiyodev 7y ago
      Everyone has the right, not everyone has government protection of the right.
- tdurden 7y ago
  Sure, except that isn't true [1]. 1. https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/ https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminat...
  - fgonzag 7y ago
    TIL anti vaxxers are a protected class.
  - dngray 7y ago
    and that's not really the same thing. That couple could buy a cake anywhere else if they wanted. The thing is with social networking websites, there's nothing mandating that the company must allow content on their network that they personally find abhorrent. Imagine if, pedophiles complained about their freedom of speech to sexualize children in a textual sense. In some countries that would be illegal because it would be child pornography, in others would it be freedom of speech? Would the company be not allowed to remove it? No. The consistent message social networking/services say is that it's not within the well being of the community to allow "fake and harmful content", in the previous example they would say that it is "harmful".
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

Why? It isn't the government, it isn't protected speech. A company can take a stand for whatever moral position it feels is correct, they are protected by free speech, just like anti vaxxers are protected.

tdurden 7y ago
Because in this case it may be fine, maybe not in the next. I am not saying companies can't do this, it's just a slippery slope.
aiyodev 7y ago
Where did this nonsense get started? Freedom of speech and freedom of expression are rights that everyone has because they are human. The first amendment is one protection of these rights that prevents the violation of these rights by the US government. People still have freedom of speech and freedom of expression when dealing with non-government organizations. It’s a responsibility of these organization to respect these rights. Customers should refuse to do business with companies that do not.
- dngray 7y ago
  > Customers should refuse to do business with companies that do not. Except that anti vaxxers are usually mentally ill themselves and are incapable of building product or service, particularly in the technology industry. That's why we see a lot of alt-right or anti vax type people on platforms which consider their behavior hostile after it gets them bad press. Beforehand they usually turn a blind eye. It is an attempt to get out in front of regulation which will be inevitable if companies do nothing about it. Also, not everyone on the internet lives in America, which means not everyone has freedom of speech.
  - aiyodev 7y ago
    Everyone has the right, not everyone has government protection of the right.
tdurden 7y ago
Sure, except that isn't true [1]. 1. https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminated-against-gay-couple/ https://aclu-co.org/court-rules-bakery-illegally-discriminat...
- fgonzag 7y ago
  TIL anti vaxxers are a protected class.
- dngray 7y ago
  and that's not really the same thing. That couple could buy a cake anywhere else if they wanted. The thing is with social networking websites, there's nothing mandating that the company must allow content on their network that they personally find abhorrent. Imagine if, pedophiles complained about their freedom of speech to sexualize children in a textual sense. In some countries that would be illegal because it would be child pornography, in others would it be freedom of speech? Would the company be not allowed to remove it? No. The consistent message social networking/services say is that it's not within the well being of the community to allow "fake and harmful content", in the previous example they would say that it is "harmful".

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]