5 ms·

It sounds like they're demanding that Facebook censor content and advertisements, as long as it aligns with Patagonia's politics. And they are using the power

by jb775 6y ago

It sounds like they're demanding that Facebook censor content and advertisements, as long as it aligns with Patagonia's politics. And they are using the power of the mob to guilt trip other companies into joining them.

mhoad 6y ago
It would be hard to come up with a less charitable interpretation than that. You're all through this thread making salty comments. It does seem somewhat ironic that you seem to be making some kind of free speech argument for Facebook... by getting irrationally upset that a company decided to exercise theirs by not giving them money for a while.
6AA4FD 6y ago
If I'm a small business owner and I buy billboard space from a guy (Jimmy) who also sells billboard space to advertisers who publish racist/sexist content, is it unreasonable for me to spend my money elsewhere until Jimmy quits his bs? What if Jimmy freely sends mailers too, to anyone who asks, and I want him to not send mailers if they are racist? If I was in that position and you told me you had a problem with what I was doing, I would tell you to get off my lawn.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
  Yes, I think that's unreasonable for you to do, almost as bad as if you demanded that Jimmy fire some of his employees for nasty things they said on Twitter. Demanding that your business partners can only do business with third parties you approve of is a recipe for extreme and toxic fragmentation.
  - 6AA4FD 6y ago
    'Nasty things' is a little bit nebulous. If the nasty thing in this case is this phrase: 'blacks are disagreeable.' I would absolutely either demand that person be fired or take my business elsewhere. I think furthering racism is more of a recipe for toxic fragmentation than firing racist, and don't see how it's unreasonable for me in that scenario to not want my money going into the hands of that racist employee.
    - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
      It's meant to be nebulous, since that's how such a standard inevitably ends up. You and I consider racial hatred to be beyond the pale - but others say the same thing about calls to send in the National Guard, or opposition to Israel. If you can't say anything that any of your second-degree connections would find terrible, you can't really say anything controversial at all.
      - 6AA4FD 6y ago
        If we stop putting speech on a pedestal for just a second and consider it as a subset of all the actions someone can perform: if I buy products from a $clothingBrand and one of their C-levels commits a hate crime am I allowed to stop buying their clothes in protest? I think it's relatively uncontroversial to say I am. I don't want to further empower an racist abuser with my money, so it's reasonable for me to spend it elsewhere. What about if the C-level donates money to Dylann Roof's defense? I don't want my money going there either, so I'm going to do the same as in the first case. What if the C-level says 'blacks are distasteful' on twitter? Well, in the same way that physically harming someone and spending money are concrete actions with serious consequences, speech is also a concrete action with serious consequences. Imagine being a black employee at $clothingBrand: you will feel uncomfortable working there, you might worry about losing your job for a stupid reason or getting passed over for a promotion you deserve. Imagine being a racist employee at $clothingBrand: you will feel more assured in discriminating against your fellow employees who are black, because you know at least one C-level is actively racist, and more are okay with it. That C-level's speech will have significant consequences for both of these people, and if I want to avoid these outcomes in other companies I will stand in protest to stop it from happening again. Now you might say, 'what if you complain about $controversialForeignPolicy on twitter and your employer is pressured to fire you?' Well I wouldn't like it, but not for the reason you would think. I have political goals I want to further, and I want a job. But I the problem does not lie for me in someone who thinks my actions are harmful complaining to my employer, the key difference is just that I think my statement and action has a good outcome and that the C-level's statements and actions have bad outcomes. Everyone has political, social, and economic capital to spend, and in general there is no problem for me with anyone spending it to stop other people from doing bad things. There are many sanctions we delegate to our government in our so-called social contract, but there are still a few we can and should leave at our own disposal.
- jb775 6y ago
  The underlying topic here is free speech. I'm sure you were on-board with YouTube censoring the "Plandemic" video last month, right? You probably said "YouTube is a private company and they have the right to do whatever they want". Well, Facebook is a private company and they can also "do whatever they want". But at least Facebook is letting natural market forces play out rather than become a subjective information gatekeeper.
  - scollet 6y ago
    How does this affect free speech?

by jb775 6y ago

mhoad 6y ago

It would be hard to come up with a less charitable interpretation than that. You're all through this thread making salty comments. It does seem somewhat ironic that you seem to be making some kind of free speech argument for Facebook... by getting irrationally upset that a company decided to exercise theirs by not giving them money for a while.

6AA4FD 6y ago

If I'm a small business owner and I buy billboard space from a guy (Jimmy) who also sells billboard space to advertisers who publish racist/sexist content, is it unreasonable for me to spend my money elsewhere until Jimmy quits his bs? What if Jimmy freely sends mailers too, to anyone who asks, and I want him to not send mailers if they are racist? If I was in that position and you told me you had a problem with what I was doing, I would tell you to get off my lawn.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
Yes, I think that's unreasonable for you to do, almost as bad as if you demanded that Jimmy fire some of his employees for nasty things they said on Twitter. Demanding that your business partners can only do business with third parties you approve of is a recipe for extreme and toxic fragmentation.
- 6AA4FD 6y ago
  'Nasty things' is a little bit nebulous. If the nasty thing in this case is this phrase: 'blacks are disagreeable.' I would absolutely either demand that person be fired or take my business elsewhere. I think furthering racism is more of a recipe for toxic fragmentation than firing racist, and don't see how it's unreasonable for me in that scenario to not want my money going into the hands of that racist employee.
  - SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
    It's meant to be nebulous, since that's how such a standard inevitably ends up. You and I consider racial hatred to be beyond the pale - but others say the same thing about calls to send in the National Guard, or opposition to Israel. If you can't say anything that any of your second-degree connections would find terrible, you can't really say anything controversial at all.
    - 6AA4FD 6y ago
      If we stop putting speech on a pedestal for just a second and consider it as a subset of all the actions someone can perform: if I buy products from a $clothingBrand and one of their C-levels commits a hate crime am I allowed to stop buying their clothes in protest? I think it's relatively uncontroversial to say I am. I don't want to further empower an racist abuser with my money, so it's reasonable for me to spend it elsewhere. What about if the C-level donates money to Dylann Roof's defense? I don't want my money going there either, so I'm going to do the same as in the first case. What if the C-level says 'blacks are distasteful' on twitter? Well, in the same way that physically harming someone and spending money are concrete actions with serious consequences, speech is also a concrete action with serious consequences. Imagine being a black employee at $clothingBrand: you will feel uncomfortable working there, you might worry about losing your job for a stupid reason or getting passed over for a promotion you deserve. Imagine being a racist employee at $clothingBrand: you will feel more assured in discriminating against your fellow employees who are black, because you know at least one C-level is actively racist, and more are okay with it. That C-level's speech will have significant consequences for both of these people, and if I want to avoid these outcomes in other companies I will stand in protest to stop it from happening again. Now you might say, 'what if you complain about $controversialForeignPolicy on twitter and your employer is pressured to fire you?' Well I wouldn't like it, but not for the reason you would think. I have political goals I want to further, and I want a job. But I the problem does not lie for me in someone who thinks my actions are harmful complaining to my employer, the key difference is just that I think my statement and action has a good outcome and that the C-level's statements and actions have bad outcomes. Everyone has political, social, and economic capital to spend, and in general there is no problem for me with anyone spending it to stop other people from doing bad things. There are many sanctions we delegate to our government in our so-called social contract, but there are still a few we can and should leave at our own disposal.
jb775 6y ago
The underlying topic here is free speech. I'm sure you were on-board with YouTube censoring the "Plandemic" video last month, right? You probably said "YouTube is a private company and they have the right to do whatever they want". Well, Facebook is a private company and they can also "do whatever they want". But at least Facebook is letting natural market forces play out rather than become a subjective information gatekeeper.
- scollet 6y ago
  How does this affect free speech?