4 ms·

There are other platforms. The issue isn't the platforms, they want the audience from one platform on other platforms as well. Consumers have the choice to use

There are other platforms. The issue isn't the platforms, they want the audience from one platform on other platforms as well. Consumers have the choice to use those other platforms, and people do actively use those other platforms. They just don't necessarily bring the same audience. > Being banned from one restaurant in town, should not mean you're banned from all restaurants in the world. So is the suggestion that I should be forced to serve people I don't want to serve?

Stranger43 6y ago
The current US law regarding restaurants is in fact that an commercial establishment have very little freedom to refuse to save people based on who they are. The problem with social media is that the big platforms, like the post office or your ISP often ends up as an natural monopoly that can be just as dangerous to your political freedoms as any out of control government department by virtue of being just as powerful in the real world.
- dlp211 6y ago
  > The current US law regarding restaurants is in fact that an commercial establishment have very little freedom to refuse to save people based on who they are. To be clear, current US law protects things that one can not change about themselves eg: race --and even this is a bit of an oversimplification (see being gay or a woman)-- but it in no way prevents a restaurant from serving someone because of the attire they are wearing or the speech they are speaking.
  - btilly 6y ago
    Or their profession. A classic example being that it is permissible to refuse to rent an apartment to a lawyer. (And in fact this is common in some places.)
  - hootbootscoot 6y ago
    exactly, think of a bartender refusing to serve a problematic former client a drink, or the bouncers not letting them in, due to them being specifically sanctioned. private business absolutely has the right to refuse service to people over their behavior or expressed intentions. the US first amendment protects against GOVERNMENTAL infringement. in terms of this Twitter tempest-in-a-teapot, they ALSO have a right to free speech and Trumps demonstrably FALSE claims can absolutely be addressed, labeled as false, and that is an absolute right to free speech that Trump has already threatened with specious "governmental action" which PRECISELY violates both the letter and the spirit of the first amendment! Trump is violating it!
- jasonlotito 6y ago
  > The current US law regarding restaurants is in fact that an commercial establishment have very little freedom to refuse to save people based on who they are. I was referring to non-protected classes of people. For example, I have the right to refuse to serve someone who has written bad checks at my establishment, for example. Or I have the right to refuse service to someone who has caused harm to my clients. Which leads back to my question: Should I be forced to serve these people?
all2 6y ago
[EDIT] I'd love to hear a counter argument to go with the down votes. Have I failed to add any substance to this conversation? [/EDIT] > So is the suggestion that I should be forced to serve people I don't want to serve? Well, yes. Like a utility company. It doesn't matter who is hooked up to the water/sewer/internet/etc., they get service. I think the platform/publisher debate needs to actually be had. Right now Twitter/FB/etc. are acting like publishers (silencing some, ignoring others) rather than platforms. If they are going to take responsibility for what is on their platform, they need to take full responsibility (a publisher). Or, they need to take no responsibility, as far as that goes under the law (a platform, which I here conflate with utility). As it stands, all of the major social media companies are biased to the US left, and they cater largely to the left [0][1]. When they silence, they silence the US political right. Or comments that are critical of the CCCP[2]. Or legitimate medical opinions about Covid-19[3]. [0] https://dailycaller.com/2017/08/11/conservative-and-independent-youtube-channels-hit-by-censorship-and-demonetization/ https://dailycaller.com/2017/08/11/conservative-and-independ... [1] https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/social-media-companies-discriminate-against-conservatives/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/social-media-companie... [2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/05/youtube-auto-deletes-comments-with-phrases-critical-of-chinese-government/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/05/youtube-auto-del... [3] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/youtube-facebook-split-removal-doctors-viral-coronavirus-videos-n1195276 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/youtube-facebook-spli...
gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
> So is the suggestion that I should be forced to serve people I don't want to serve? It's not as crazy an idea as it sounds. You may already be forced to. You cannot not serve people based on a protected characteristic.
- jasonlotito 6y ago
  I was referring to not protected classes of people. For example, I have the right to refuse to serve someone who has written bad checks at my establishment, for example. Or I have the right to refuse service to someone who has caused harm to my clients.
  - gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
    I get it, but your wording in the OP missed that nuance. I was merely pointing out that as a society we have decided some reasons to refuse service are unacceptable. It is therefore a lot less inconceivable that other reasons might be considered unacceptable.
- quickthrowman 6y ago
  Racists are not a protected class
  - incompatible 6y ago
    Once you take out racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, religious bigotry, etc., from modern conservatism, is there actually anything left? It's not really surprising that conservatives would turn out to be the biggest victims of "political correctness" based censorship. I'd be happy to be corrected about what modern conservatism stands for, if my impression is incorrect. I'm distinguishing the modern conservatives from the conservatives of the bygone era who favoured neoliberalism, with its ideas about free markets, small government, balanced budgets etc., which does have an academic pedigree, but which seems to have been largely discarded by both the left and right.
  - koheripbal 6y ago

Stranger43 6y ago

The current US law regarding restaurants is in fact that an commercial establishment have very little freedom to refuse to save people based on who they are. The problem with social media is that the big platforms, like the post office or your ISP often ends up as an natural monopoly that can be just as dangerous to your political freedoms as any out of control government department by virtue of being just as powerful in the real world.

dlp211 6y ago
> The current US law regarding restaurants is in fact that an commercial establishment have very little freedom to refuse to save people based on who they are. To be clear, current US law protects things that one can not change about themselves eg: race --and even this is a bit of an oversimplification (see being gay or a woman)-- but it in no way prevents a restaurant from serving someone because of the attire they are wearing or the speech they are speaking.
- btilly 6y ago
  Or their profession. A classic example being that it is permissible to refuse to rent an apartment to a lawyer. (And in fact this is common in some places.)
- hootbootscoot 6y ago
  exactly, think of a bartender refusing to serve a problematic former client a drink, or the bouncers not letting them in, due to them being specifically sanctioned. private business absolutely has the right to refuse service to people over their behavior or expressed intentions. the US first amendment protects against GOVERNMENTAL infringement. in terms of this Twitter tempest-in-a-teapot, they ALSO have a right to free speech and Trumps demonstrably FALSE claims can absolutely be addressed, labeled as false, and that is an absolute right to free speech that Trump has already threatened with specious "governmental action" which PRECISELY violates both the letter and the spirit of the first amendment! Trump is violating it!
jasonlotito 6y ago
> The current US law regarding restaurants is in fact that an commercial establishment have very little freedom to refuse to save people based on who they are. I was referring to non-protected classes of people. For example, I have the right to refuse to serve someone who has written bad checks at my establishment, for example. Or I have the right to refuse service to someone who has caused harm to my clients. Which leads back to my question: Should I be forced to serve these people?

all2 6y ago

[EDIT] I'd love to hear a counter argument to go with the down votes. Have I failed to add any substance to this conversation? [/EDIT] > So is the suggestion that I should be forced to serve people I don't want to serve? Well, yes. Like a utility company. It doesn't matter who is hooked up to the water/sewer/internet/etc., they get service. I think the platform/publisher debate needs to actually be had. Right now Twitter/FB/etc. are acting like publishers (silencing some, ignoring others) rather than platforms. If they are going to take responsibility for what is on their platform, they need to take full responsibility (a publisher). Or, they need to take no responsibility, as far as that goes under the law (a platform, which I here conflate with utility). As it stands, all of the major social media companies are biased to the US left, and they cater largely to the left [0][1]. When they silence, they silence the US political right. Or comments that are critical of the CCCP[2]. Or legitimate medical opinions about Covid-19[3]. [0] https://dailycaller.com/2017/08/11/conservative-and-independent-youtube-channels-hit-by-censorship-and-demonetization/ https://dailycaller.com/2017/08/11/conservative-and-independ... [1] https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/social-media-companies-discriminate-against-conservatives/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/social-media-companie... [2] https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/05/youtube-auto-deletes-comments-with-phrases-critical-of-chinese-government/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/05/youtube-auto-del... [3] https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/youtube-facebook-split-removal-doctors-viral-coronavirus-videos-n1195276 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/youtube-facebook-spli...

gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago

> So is the suggestion that I should be forced to serve people I don't want to serve? It's not as crazy an idea as it sounds. You may already be forced to. You cannot not serve people based on a protected characteristic.

jasonlotito 6y ago
I was referring to not protected classes of people. For example, I have the right to refuse to serve someone who has written bad checks at my establishment, for example. Or I have the right to refuse service to someone who has caused harm to my clients.
- gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
  I get it, but your wording in the OP missed that nuance. I was merely pointing out that as a society we have decided some reasons to refuse service are unacceptable. It is therefore a lot less inconceivable that other reasons might be considered unacceptable.
quickthrowman 6y ago
Racists are not a protected class
- incompatible 6y ago
  Once you take out racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, transphobia, religious bigotry, etc., from modern conservatism, is there actually anything left? It's not really surprising that conservatives would turn out to be the biggest victims of "political correctness" based censorship. I'd be happy to be corrected about what modern conservatism stands for, if my impression is incorrect. I'm distinguishing the modern conservatives from the conservatives of the bygone era who favoured neoliberalism, with its ideas about free markets, small government, balanced budgets etc., which does have an academic pedigree, but which seems to have been largely discarded by both the left and right.
- koheripbal 6y ago