15 ms·
And yet. There's a certain "side" that wants to have that both ways Private companies can't censor "bad opinions" But private companies can also arbitrarily r
by IntelMiner 6y ago
And yet. There's a certain "side" that wants to have that both ways
Private companies can't censor "bad opinions"
But private companies can also arbitrarily refuse service for say, making a "gay wedding cake"
How is this disconnect rationalized?
- colpabar 6y agodoesn't it go both ways? if you flip both positions, it's also inconsistent.
- SkyBelow 6y agoI have to say I generally agree with you that when someone points out a contradiction in some common political stance, the reverse of that contradiction exists in the opposite stance. It seems pretty common, though it generally results from distilling a more complex view into a simplified statement (which may edge into the territory of creating men of straw).
- colpabar 6y ago>generally results from distilling a more complex view into a simplified statement couldn't agree more. it's so frustrating seeing this everywhere online. this isn't twitter, you can write as much as you want. I read comments online to try and understand other viewpoints, and I can't do that without substance.
- ivanbakel 6y agoHow so? The first hypocrisy is the defense of the right of a business to make arbitrary decisions w.r.t. service (not bake the cake), while simultaneously demanding that the business not have the power to refuse service (condemning private censorship). The reverse position is not hypocritical in the same way, because condemning discrimination against customers on LGBT grounds is not at odds with censoring discriminatory speech - in fact, the two positions are aligned. You could try to argue that private censorship is itself a form of discrimination, but most people who hold the second position would not concede that the people who practice hate speech are a minority worthy of protection - so for them, no discrimination is occurring.
- retpirato 6y agoGoogle removing apps with spam/malware is one thing, & not something people would actually complain about. That also doesn't apply to removing the fediverse apps. They don't contain malware, they're simply alternative social networks. If they're going to remove them for having content they consider inappropriate or whatever excuse they're using, they need to remove other social media apps like facebook & twitter, because they certainly both have plenty of that too. Otherwise it just looks like an attempt to remove competitors to facebook/twitter. I also don't see what this has to do with a business refusing to make a cake. Businesses do have a right to refuse service. In this case if you're going to remove apps claiming they violate a specific violation, but don't remove other apps which will also inevitably be in violation the same way, it's reasonable for people to question it.
- Aerroon 6y agoSize (importance) of the company. Can your electricity company disconnect you because they don't like what you're saying online using that electricity?
- IntelMiner 6y agoAn electricity company is a utility however. They're a natural monopoly in a way that a "website" can't be If [large social media platform] doesn't want that kind of content, it's not unreasonable to simply make one to soak up that "ignored" market segment. Reddit can't shut you down for hosting your own internet forum for instance
- mc32 6y agoInterestingly, L.A.’s mayor has threatened as well as executed water service disruption to people hosting large parties. I get why one might want to do that, but I don’t think it’s the right precedent to set.
- Loughla 6y ago>but I don’t think it’s the right precedent to set. I've thought about this statement for about a half hour now. What does it mean? That punishing individuals for ignoring public health mandates is a precedent we don't want? Or is it just the 'utility' being used that is problematic for you? I don't get it.
- nitrogen 6y agoTaking away a fundamental requirement for life is cruel and unusual, and the punishment does not fit the crime.
- chucksmash 6y agoI don't know how I feel about cutting off the water service, but "cruel and unusual" seems like a reach. It would be cruel and unusual to deprive a prisoner of water because they have no other means of attaining it when you withhold it. Turning off city water service to a property is different. The property owner has other options they can take to get the water they need to stay alive.
- kikokikokiko 6y agoComparing "allowing/disallowing the use of a tool" to spread YOUR message, to the "demanding that an artist/artisan create a message of YOUR liking" is very disingenuous. To be fair, I'm a libertarian and in a perfect world, you can do whatever and allow whoever you want to use/not use YOUR business. But this analogy of the gay wedding cake is simply not a good one.
- IntelMiner 6y agoIt was the first one that came to mind, forgive me. The basic thesis of my analogy was "you want 'free speech' forced upon private companies, but also want to allow them the freedom to dictate what content they allow under their 'brand'"
- kbenson 6y agoIt's worth noting that there's also a side that wants the opposite of that, to censor bad opinions, but not be able to refuse making a gay wedding cake. Hypocrites are not limited to specific groups, they're universal.
- jwalgenbach 6y agoYeah, not so much. The difference is in the legal definition of protected class. It is illegal to discriminate against someone based on their membership of a protected class -- ethnicity or disability for instance. Removing an opinion or banning a user based on violation of an agreed upon term of service is not the same thing. Having an opinion does not make you a member of a protected class, and a private corporation is free to allow you or disallow you from use of their services to broadcast that opinion. Newspapers have been doing this since the dawn of print. Google could not, for example, ban someone for being Jewish. You can argue about whether sexual orientation deserves status as a protected class, but it is disingenuous to claim that the two are the same thing under the law. It is a false equivalency.
- archgoon 6y agoI don't see the word 'law' showing up anywhere in kbensons comment. It's disingenuous to claim that kbenson was making a legal argument.
- postnihilism 6y agokbensons is explicitly referencing a legal case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
- TeMPOraL 6y agoI feel that the goalposts here have been shot out into space and are orbiting the barycenter where the point is. Let's maybe spell out separately whether or not these two situations are equivalent or not a) legally, b) ethically, c) in principle.
- tzs 6y agoNone of the reporting I saw on the wedding cake cases actually described the cakes. Are we talking normal wedding cakes, that you can buy from nearly any baker, with some ordinary decorations, that just have two men's names instead of one men's name and one woman's name after the "Congratulations", and have two mass-produced little plastic men on top instead of one little plastic man and one little plastic woman? Or are we talking something you'd get from a baker like Duff Goldman, which is a custom designed and made unique work of art specifically for you that captures the artist's interpretation of your wedding, and inherently is an act of speech on the part of the artist?
- lenkite 6y agoIts custom designed cake. That baker has been sued yet again because he refused to bake a trans-themed birthday cake. I don't believe he has a problem selling cakes to anyone, just that he refused to design cakes with themes.
- karakot 6y agoBeing a gay is not a choice, the same way as being a black, a minority etc. Being an asshole is a choice on the other way, the same as being radical left or radical right. The former is protected the latter is not.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- corey_moncure 6y agoA bakery is not a speech platform. Allowing speech on your speech platform is not the same thing as compelling others to speech.
- kube-system 6y agoBecause it is illegal (and morally wrong) to treat people differently because of who they are, not what they say or do.
- TempLogsForOne 6y agoIt's not a disconnect, you are simply not understanding because you are clearly very authoritarian minded. The right to free speech is a God given right that the Constitution is the highest law of the land that prohibits the government from infringing on. Through the legal supremacy clause, the laws of the Constitution apply and supersede all other inferior laws and jurisdictions. I actually agree though that the tech tyrants should be allowed to censor if they wish … once they built a private internet that is not using or funded by public resources. Problem solved, censor away. That would be akin to censoring someone in your own home, but you cannot censor someone outside of the home, because you are infringing on other's right to free speech. What you are actually doing is rationalizing that Google and all the other tech tyrants have the right to censor what you say in public … because the internet is public … it is not private unless it is operating solely on private resources … which NONE of them are. You are advocating to control others, what they want to say to others, regardless of whether you want to hear it. You are not only trying to control the speaker, but you are also trying to control the listener. It's not healthy. As to your other authoritarian and tyrannical point; you are literally trying to force someone to do something against their will and yet you still cannot see anything wrong with that. It is not healthy, you are not healthy. You are in fact dangerous and evil in your desire to spread and impose harm on others and want to control others.
- WWLink 6y agoOh I agree here. I think if you go into business to make cakes, you should vow to fulfill all your cake orders. Likewise, if you say you're a webhost, you host websites. If there's a legal issue, you report it. That's it.
- BurningFrog 6y agoThere is a huge number of bakeries. What one doesn't want to do, others will. Google is arguably in a monopolist situation. If they block your app or opinion, you're silenced.