5 ms·

How is a business censoring their own networks related to fascism? Is the downvote button fascist? This is the classic "paradox of tolerance."

leereeves 7y ago
Why is it more acceptable when a business does it than when a government does it?
- locopati 7y ago
  Because if you live in a country there's only one government. Business provide a service and you can find another service that meets your needs.
- ssalazar 7y ago
  The same reason if I go to a stranger's house and start debating with them about my own political opinions they are free to kick me out. Free enterprise and private property are generally considered fundaments of modern civil society. Im all ears if you have an argument to the contrary.
  - leereeves 7y ago
    We're not talking about people's houses. In the context of business, California has already made that argument for me, making it illegal to discriminate based on political views.
    - ssalazar 7y ago
      > We're not talking about people's houses. I'm talking about private property and the right to do with it as one pleases so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. When a group of people create a business this doesn't magically go away. > In the context of business, California has already made that argument for me, making it illegal to discriminate based on political views. Certain protected classes are legally protected from discrimination, yes. To my knowledge "advocating violence" is not a political view; this is what the r/The_Donald is being quarantined for.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - leereeves 7y ago
        Here's the original story accusing TD of advocating violence: https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2019/06/24/A-pro-Trump-subreddit-is-full-of-calls-for-violence-in-support-of-Oregon-Republicans/224018 https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2019/06/24/A-pro-Trump... Featuring comments with as few as 1 point. Those are just an excuse to further restrict a community they've restricted several times in the past, without admitting it's for political reasons.
        bduerst 7y ago
        Okay, you've signalled that they do do it, but now there are not enough points of data. How many points of data is your burden of proof, before you agree?
        leereeves 7y ago
        "They"? Those are comments from a few fringe users, buried so deep that most people never saw them. Is that a reason to punish a community of hundreds of thousands of people? That's like quarantining an entire city because a few people there are violent. That's not a good solution in the real world or online.
        bduerst 7y ago
        So is the burden of proof that the people commenting about inciting violence have to be "main" users before it's a problem? What's your criteria for that? You're being pretty slippery right now by dodging questions.
        leereeves 7y ago
        I'd say handle it like we handle crime in the real world. Punish the offender, not the community. Now will you answer a similar question? I spent a couple minutes looking through a single post on r/politics and found a couple of violent comments: > Just do a 180 turn on gun reforms. They’ll take an armed population more seriously. https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/c5og99/there_are_people_in_concentration_camps_why_arent/es387hw/ https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/c5og99/there_are_... > It's because protests don't achieve anything. ... Riots on the other hand... https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/c5og99/there_are_people_in_concentration_camps_why_arent/es397lg/ https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/c5og99/there_are_... Do you think r/politics should be quarantined because of those two posts? Unless that was an extremely unusual post, there are undoubtedly many more. How many more would make you want a quarantine?
    - otterley 7y ago
      That's not entirely correct. California makes it illegal for an _employer_ to discriminate against an _employee_ based on their political views. It does not make it illegal for businesses to discriminate against _customers_ based on their political views.
  - xyzzyz 7y ago
    Companies are not free to choose with whom they do business. There are many constraints, not the least of which is it being illegal to refuse to do business with someone because of their race, sex, sexual orientation, and, in California, political opinions. Free enterprise and private property might have been fundamentals of civil society in the past, but that ship has long sailed since then.
    - ssalazar 7y ago
      > Companies are not free to choose with whom they do business. For the most part, yes they are. For instance, every online business has a Terms of Service detailing many situations in which they will or will not do business with you. Race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age, etc. are specific situations in which governments/society have decided that its worth restricting this freedom for the greater good. The existence of these relatively few exceptions does not negate their overall freedom to do business with whomever they please.
    - root_axis 7y ago
      The quarantine isn't based off of political orientation though, otherwise r/republican and r/conservative would also be quarantined.
      - leereeves 7y ago
        Allegedly it's based off a few fringe comments that Media Matters found, with mostly single digit points: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/c5sbpm/reddit_quarantines_us_claiming_we_threaten/ https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/c5sbpm/reddit_q... Those aren't representative of the sub. What's the real reason?
        root_axis 7y ago
        I don't think anyone has a scientific answer on what is "representative" of the sub besides it's clear support for the president, but honestly it doesn't seem out of line with my experiences of the_donald.
- awinder 7y ago
  Wouldn’t it be invasive to demand that anyone handle anyone else’s business? There’s two freedoms being negotiated there, and the law origins basically boil down to — by emphasizing the business owners freedom the market should be able to support a solution for the other (or you go build that business, if it is needed). Total freedom in that system is higher than in the one that demands anyone do business with anyone. R_TheDonald is a forum on someone’s product, there’s a low barrier erected here, they could go buy a url and some servers and continue their speech.
  - leereeves 7y ago
    > Wouldn’t it be invasive to demand that anyone handle anyone else’s business? Maybe, but it's a very common demand.
- BubRoss 7y ago
  Because the business is choosing who they use their resources to rebroadcast under their name and the government has a monopoly on violence. The government is not guaranteeing that they will rebroadcast whatever you want to say, they are just not giving you consequences for saying it. Businesses aren't imposing consequences of violence on speech, they just are choosing not to be a part of it. Someone not listening to you is not censorship.
goodfight 7y ago
It's a step in the direction to fascism, that doesn't mean it is fascist. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The downvote button is part of a ranking algorithm from the userbase, deboosting is part of the ranking algorithm from the host. Would you like it if a "platform" tied an anchor on your success/views because they didn't agree with your opinions? Since you believe in the paradox of tolerance do you agree that the US shouldn't let Islamic migrants come due to their belief in vile things such as throwing gays off roofs?
- bduerst 7y ago
  The USSR heavily censored content, were they stepping closer to fascism? I don't think you're using facism in the right context here, maybe you meant something else?
  - goodfight 7y ago
    When you start from democracy, censorship becoming prevalent is a step towards fascism, authoritarianism, socialism, communism, technocracy, etc.
    - bduerst 7y ago
      As someone else pointed out, Reddit's not a democracy so they're not starting as one either. Unless you count their private corporation as a democracy of sorts, but then they're most likely acting in their shareholders' interests. Maybe you meant the word authoritarian instead of fascist?
      - goodfight 7y ago
        The US is a democratic republic and they are a US based company, so they should lean towards the laws under which they exist. I'm not playing this semantics game with you.
        BubRoss 7y ago

leereeves 7y ago

Why is it more acceptable when a business does it than when a government does it?

locopati 7y ago
Because if you live in a country there's only one government. Business provide a service and you can find another service that meets your needs.
ssalazar 7y ago
The same reason if I go to a stranger's house and start debating with them about my own political opinions they are free to kick me out. Free enterprise and private property are generally considered fundaments of modern civil society. Im all ears if you have an argument to the contrary.
- leereeves 7y ago
  We're not talking about people's houses. In the context of business, California has already made that argument for me, making it illegal to discriminate based on political views.
  - ssalazar 7y ago
    > We're not talking about people's houses. I'm talking about private property and the right to do with it as one pleases so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. When a group of people create a business this doesn't magically go away. > In the context of business, California has already made that argument for me, making it illegal to discriminate based on political views. Certain protected classes are legally protected from discrimination, yes. To my knowledge "advocating violence" is not a political view; this is what the r/The_Donald is being quarantined for.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - leereeves 7y ago
      Here's the original story accusing TD of advocating violence: https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2019/06/24/A-pro-Trump-subreddit-is-full-of-calls-for-violence-in-support-of-Oregon-Republicans/224018 https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2019/06/24/A-pro-Trump... Featuring comments with as few as 1 point. Those are just an excuse to further restrict a community they've restricted several times in the past, without admitting it's for political reasons.
      - bduerst 7y ago
        Okay, you've signalled that they do do it, but now there are not enough points of data. How many points of data is your burden of proof, before you agree?
        leereeves 7y ago
        "They"? Those are comments from a few fringe users, buried so deep that most people never saw them. Is that a reason to punish a community of hundreds of thousands of people? That's like quarantining an entire city because a few people there are violent. That's not a good solution in the real world or online.
        bduerst 7y ago
        So is the burden of proof that the people commenting about inciting violence have to be "main" users before it's a problem? What's your criteria for that? You're being pretty slippery right now by dodging questions.
        leereeves 7y ago
        I'd say handle it like we handle crime in the real world. Punish the offender, not the community. Now will you answer a similar question? I spent a couple minutes looking through a single post on r/politics and found a couple of violent comments: > Just do a 180 turn on gun reforms. They’ll take an armed population more seriously. https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/c5og99/there_are_people_in_concentration_camps_why_arent/es387hw/ https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/c5og99/there_are_... > It's because protests don't achieve anything. ... Riots on the other hand... https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/c5og99/there_are_people_in_concentration_camps_why_arent/es397lg/ https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/c5og99/there_are_... Do you think r/politics should be quarantined because of those two posts? Unless that was an extremely unusual post, there are undoubtedly many more. How many more would make you want a quarantine?
  - otterley 7y ago
    That's not entirely correct. California makes it illegal for an _employer_ to discriminate against an _employee_ based on their political views. It does not make it illegal for businesses to discriminate against _customers_ based on their political views.
- xyzzyz 7y ago
  Companies are not free to choose with whom they do business. There are many constraints, not the least of which is it being illegal to refuse to do business with someone because of their race, sex, sexual orientation, and, in California, political opinions. Free enterprise and private property might have been fundamentals of civil society in the past, but that ship has long sailed since then.
  - ssalazar 7y ago
    > Companies are not free to choose with whom they do business. For the most part, yes they are. For instance, every online business has a Terms of Service detailing many situations in which they will or will not do business with you. Race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age, etc. are specific situations in which governments/society have decided that its worth restricting this freedom for the greater good. The existence of these relatively few exceptions does not negate their overall freedom to do business with whomever they please.
  - root_axis 7y ago
    The quarantine isn't based off of political orientation though, otherwise r/republican and r/conservative would also be quarantined.
    - leereeves 7y ago
      Allegedly it's based off a few fringe comments that Media Matters found, with mostly single digit points: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/c5sbpm/reddit_quarantines_us_claiming_we_threaten/ https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/c5sbpm/reddit_q... Those aren't representative of the sub. What's the real reason?
      - root_axis 7y ago
        I don't think anyone has a scientific answer on what is "representative" of the sub besides it's clear support for the president, but honestly it doesn't seem out of line with my experiences of the_donald.
awinder 7y ago
Wouldn’t it be invasive to demand that anyone handle anyone else’s business? There’s two freedoms being negotiated there, and the law origins basically boil down to — by emphasizing the business owners freedom the market should be able to support a solution for the other (or you go build that business, if it is needed). Total freedom in that system is higher than in the one that demands anyone do business with anyone. R_TheDonald is a forum on someone’s product, there’s a low barrier erected here, they could go buy a url and some servers and continue their speech.
- leereeves 7y ago
  > Wouldn’t it be invasive to demand that anyone handle anyone else’s business? Maybe, but it's a very common demand.
BubRoss 7y ago
Because the business is choosing who they use their resources to rebroadcast under their name and the government has a monopoly on violence. The government is not guaranteeing that they will rebroadcast whatever you want to say, they are just not giving you consequences for saying it. Businesses aren't imposing consequences of violence on speech, they just are choosing not to be a part of it. Someone not listening to you is not censorship.

goodfight 7y ago

It's a step in the direction to fascism, that doesn't mean it is fascist. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. The downvote button is part of a ranking algorithm from the userbase, deboosting is part of the ranking algorithm from the host. Would you like it if a "platform" tied an anchor on your success/views because they didn't agree with your opinions? Since you believe in the paradox of tolerance do you agree that the US shouldn't let Islamic migrants come due to their belief in vile things such as throwing gays off roofs?

bduerst 7y ago
The USSR heavily censored content, were they stepping closer to fascism? I don't think you're using facism in the right context here, maybe you meant something else?
- goodfight 7y ago
  When you start from democracy, censorship becoming prevalent is a step towards fascism, authoritarianism, socialism, communism, technocracy, etc.
  - bduerst 7y ago
    As someone else pointed out, Reddit's not a democracy so they're not starting as one either. Unless you count their private corporation as a democracy of sorts, but then they're most likely acting in their shareholders' interests. Maybe you meant the word authoritarian instead of fascist?
    - goodfight 7y ago
      The US is a democratic republic and they are a US based company, so they should lean towards the laws under which they exist. I'm not playing this semantics game with you.
      - BubRoss 7y ago