4 ms·

Yeah, 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 p

Yeah, 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 ago
I 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 ago
  kbensons 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 ago
I 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.
- jwalgenbach 6y ago
  Fair enough. a) As I stated in the argument about the difference between discrimination against protected classes versus hosting content on a private server, I'd say that legally, these are not equivalent. b) Ethically is an interesting question. Since the ethics of denying someone service based on their sexual orientation is largely viewed as reprehensible, maybe a better question would be whether or not (freed from questions of protected class) the baker would decorate a Nazi themed cake versus allowing federated apps that are largely used for the dissemination of white supremacist ideology to be hosted? c) In principle, I'd say they are not equivalent for the following reason: selling and decorating a cake is a business transaction between two entities. The cake (decorated or not) ownership moves from producer to consumer. The consumer is purchasing a physical cake. If the cake is ever made public, it is at the behest of the purchasers of the cake, and any consequences of that public display will be suffered by the purchaser. Essentially, the baker's name is not on the cake, and no one needs to know. Hosting apps or other contents affects the reputation of the hosting company, and damages to their business reputation fall on it. Think about Facebook being recognized as a conduit for foreign interference in U.S. elections, or whether or not the New York Times will accept ad content from an adult video company. The name on the masthead is the entity that suffers the damage first.
- TempLogsForOne 6y ago
  If you are referring to what I think you are, I agree. All of this abusive and manipulative argumentation about these things comes down to the fact that freedom is being curtailed more and more with every passing day, with people arguing more and more how "we just need to do one more thing to curtail people's freedom and then we are done" … but it's never enough and they are never done. There is always some other argument and reason to further add shackles to people's minds and ankles. In the end, all of this only adds immense amounts of volatility and instability and totally unsustainable risk that will invariably blow up. The Constitution was developed to allow people to live and associate and speak freely … that has been chipped away at for decades and even centuries now. It's sad and sick, and will only ever result in calamity as the USA, the only place on the planet where you used to at least be free, is being shackled by useful idiots who have no idea they are doing the will of the world dominating global ruling class.
dahfizz 6y ago
> but it is disingenuous to claim that the two are the same thing under the law. Have you ever heard the term "strawman"?

archgoon 6y ago

I 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 ago
kbensons 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 ago

I 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.

jwalgenbach 6y ago
Fair enough. a) As I stated in the argument about the difference between discrimination against protected classes versus hosting content on a private server, I'd say that legally, these are not equivalent. b) Ethically is an interesting question. Since the ethics of denying someone service based on their sexual orientation is largely viewed as reprehensible, maybe a better question would be whether or not (freed from questions of protected class) the baker would decorate a Nazi themed cake versus allowing federated apps that are largely used for the dissemination of white supremacist ideology to be hosted? c) In principle, I'd say they are not equivalent for the following reason: selling and decorating a cake is a business transaction between two entities. The cake (decorated or not) ownership moves from producer to consumer. The consumer is purchasing a physical cake. If the cake is ever made public, it is at the behest of the purchasers of the cake, and any consequences of that public display will be suffered by the purchaser. Essentially, the baker's name is not on the cake, and no one needs to know. Hosting apps or other contents affects the reputation of the hosting company, and damages to their business reputation fall on it. Think about Facebook being recognized as a conduit for foreign interference in U.S. elections, or whether or not the New York Times will accept ad content from an adult video company. The name on the masthead is the entity that suffers the damage first.
TempLogsForOne 6y ago
If you are referring to what I think you are, I agree. All of this abusive and manipulative argumentation about these things comes down to the fact that freedom is being curtailed more and more with every passing day, with people arguing more and more how "we just need to do one more thing to curtail people's freedom and then we are done" … but it's never enough and they are never done. There is always some other argument and reason to further add shackles to people's minds and ankles. In the end, all of this only adds immense amounts of volatility and instability and totally unsustainable risk that will invariably blow up. The Constitution was developed to allow people to live and associate and speak freely … that has been chipped away at for decades and even centuries now. It's sad and sick, and will only ever result in calamity as the USA, the only place on the planet where you used to at least be free, is being shackled by useful idiots who have no idea they are doing the will of the world dominating global ruling class.

dahfizz 6y ago

> but it is disingenuous to claim that the two are the same thing under the law. Have you ever heard the term "strawman"?