4 ms·

Why is it a precedent? Nobody was under the illusion that it isn't technically possible for them to shut down some customer they don't like. Nor was/is there a

Why is it a precedent? Nobody was under the illusion that it isn't technically possible for them to shut down some customer they don't like. Nor was/is there any debate about the legality of doing so, So the only reason for continuing to work for/with violent anti-semites was that they wanted to. Until, at some point, they changed their mind. HN has a strange infatuation with this idea of avoiding responsibility by pretending to be powerless. But it's neither morally sound nor logically or legally coherent to pretend to be bound by some principles that are entirely of one's own making.

Reelin 6y ago
> Why is it a precedent? Precedents aren't limited to the legal system. Their actions changed the expectation (ie established a new precedent) for their behavior going forward. > So the only reason for continuing to work for/with violent anti-semites was that they wanted to. Or entertaining broader ideals surrounding freedom of expression? Or perhaps seeing the inherent dangers of living in a society dominated by public outrage? Or something else entirely? > Until, at some point, they changed their mind. Due, by their own admission, to financial concerns. Concerns which wouldn't exist if they and all their competitors were legally required not to discriminate based on otherwise legal content. > HN has a strange infatuation with this idea of avoiding responsibility by pretending to be powerless. I don't see that anywhere in this comment section? Rather, I see people objecting to actions which are legal but which they feel should not be.