4 ms·

Yeah, it wouldn't fly well because FB shouldn't play a judge. I don't understand why we don't have a due process for stuff like this. Trump haters keep justif

Yeah, it wouldn't fly well because FB shouldn't play a judge. I don't understand why we don't have a due process for stuff like this. Trump haters keep justifying that FB is private they can ban whoever they want. Then, when a theme park bans a gay couple, they are screaming violently. I understand how it would be hard for normal people to push something through legal routes. But even Warren doesn't want to use a legal route to ban fake news (and such), and she was a lawyer now senate. She instead bought an ads with fake news on Zuck.

zanellato19 6y ago
People have been wanting Trump and other alt-rights banned for years _because_ of things they _did_ not who they are. Thats a major difference. And those users have repeatedly crossed the TOS of the services they are using but the pages stay up because it generates engagement. Twitter even admits that Trump was too big to ban because he generates far too much money for them and other social networks. Thats the crux of the argument people have been saying for years. Banning a gay couple is a complete false equivalence and I don't believe you can argue that in good faith.
- ergocoder 6y ago
  Why not? A private business banning people who believes in X, which happens to be gay's right. Just to be clear: I'm on the side of, if we are gonna ban someone, let's use a proper legal route to do it. Not "an exec thinks it's wrong. Let's ban them"
  - perl4ever 6y ago
    The established rule, as far as I know, is that a private business can do something, like banning people, unless there is a law against it, such as one protecting a specific class of people. Is that not how it works? Is everything illegal until a regulation specifically allows it? Should it be?
    - ergocoder 6y ago
      It's convenient, I suppose. A private business bans someone I hate. Oh yeah, private business can ban anybody. A private business bans someone I like. Oh no that's morally wrong. This system is stupid. It welcomes a screaming match or who can threaten the execs better.
      - amrangaye 6y ago
        You’re really comparing a homophobic ban of a gay couple trying to get married, to that of someone pushing an insurrection against the government? Would you also be against civil rights laws because they forced restaurants to allow black people to dine, and churches to marry interracial couples? Your attempts to make the two things equal is deeply disingenuous. This is an outright attack on the whole democratic system because one person is a sore loser.
eyelidlessness 6y ago
> Trump haters keep justifying that FB is private they can ban whoever they want. Then, when a theme park bans a gay couple, they are screaming violently. 1. One of these things is not like the other. 2. “Screaming violently”?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ergocoder 6y ago
  Yeah, have you been on twitter? Not random Twitter accounts. These are FAANG employees. They say Zuck and Dorsey support Nazis, white supremacists, and trump. I worked at these companies, and that couldn't be further from the truth. Just to be clear: I'm on the side of, if we are gonna ban someone, let's use a proper legal route to do it. But surprisingly nobody wants to go that route, huh?
  - eyelidlessness 6y ago
    Ban somebody. It’s totally legal. No additional steps required.
  - eyelidlessness 6y ago
    Normally I edit when I realize I forgot a point, but this one deserves another comment. When us leftists realize we’re being systematically excluded on a platform, yes we also make a stink. But then we go build new platforms and fucking get on with it. Because we’re not crybabies who expect to be amplified even though no one tolerates us.

zanellato19 6y ago

People have been wanting Trump and other alt-rights banned for years _because_ of things they _did_ not who they are. Thats a major difference. And those users have repeatedly crossed the TOS of the services they are using but the pages stay up because it generates engagement. Twitter even admits that Trump was too big to ban because he generates far too much money for them and other social networks. Thats the crux of the argument people have been saying for years. Banning a gay couple is a complete false equivalence and I don't believe you can argue that in good faith.

ergocoder 6y ago
Why not? A private business banning people who believes in X, which happens to be gay's right. Just to be clear: I'm on the side of, if we are gonna ban someone, let's use a proper legal route to do it. Not "an exec thinks it's wrong. Let's ban them"
- perl4ever 6y ago
  The established rule, as far as I know, is that a private business can do something, like banning people, unless there is a law against it, such as one protecting a specific class of people. Is that not how it works? Is everything illegal until a regulation specifically allows it? Should it be?
  - ergocoder 6y ago
    It's convenient, I suppose. A private business bans someone I hate. Oh yeah, private business can ban anybody. A private business bans someone I like. Oh no that's morally wrong. This system is stupid. It welcomes a screaming match or who can threaten the execs better.
    - amrangaye 6y ago
      You’re really comparing a homophobic ban of a gay couple trying to get married, to that of someone pushing an insurrection against the government? Would you also be against civil rights laws because they forced restaurants to allow black people to dine, and churches to marry interracial couples? Your attempts to make the two things equal is deeply disingenuous. This is an outright attack on the whole democratic system because one person is a sore loser.

eyelidlessness 6y ago

> Trump haters keep justifying that FB is private they can ban whoever they want. Then, when a theme park bans a gay couple, they are screaming violently. 1. One of these things is not like the other. 2. “Screaming violently”?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ergocoder 6y ago
Yeah, have you been on twitter? Not random Twitter accounts. These are FAANG employees. They say Zuck and Dorsey support Nazis, white supremacists, and trump. I worked at these companies, and that couldn't be further from the truth. Just to be clear: I'm on the side of, if we are gonna ban someone, let's use a proper legal route to do it. But surprisingly nobody wants to go that route, huh?
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  Ban somebody. It’s totally legal. No additional steps required.
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  Normally I edit when I realize I forgot a point, but this one deserves another comment. When us leftists realize we’re being systematically excluded on a platform, yes we also make a stink. But then we go build new platforms and fucking get on with it. Because we’re not crybabies who expect to be amplified even though no one tolerates us.