5 ms·

Is this not “the market” deciding it doesn’t want to entertain this business? As a society it’s totally reasonable for us to draw the line at intolerable behavi

Is this not “the market” deciding it doesn’t want to entertain this business? As a society it’s totally reasonable for us to draw the line at intolerable behaviour, we’re not obliged to put up with platforms that enable hate and vitriol, just as we don’t tolerate violence in the street. If a business closes because nobody is interested in buying their products, or a club disbands because nobody is interested in joining, or a pub bars a patron who’s starting fights and nobody blinks an eye. The same thing happens on the internet and suddenly it’s the end of the world.

OCASM 6y ago
In those cases it's the business owner who decides. What happens when the decision comes after a mob puts pressure on the owner to drop that costumer or else?
- bjustin 6y ago
  If there is a market for it, presumably some business out of reach of the mob in question will take up the mantle for the money. If there's no money in it, then the market is deciding that the market doesn't want the opinions in question. The market still decides in the end.
  - OCASM 6y ago
    Unless they're too scared of harrassment by the mob, specially a state-induced one: https://nitter.net/AOC/status/1347679332014161920#m https://nitter.net/AOC/status/1347679332014161920#m
    - dang 6y ago
      We've banned this account for continuing to do political flamewar after we specifically asked you not to. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25695444 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25695444
      - OCASM 6y ago
        So dissenting is now considered doing political flamewar? Ok.
        dang 6y ago
        Gratuitous provocation and name-calling are not dissent. You can express dissenting views without doing those things, and users here are required to. There is a link, though: people with minority opinions are sometimes so frustrated with the majority that they lash out in frustration in ways that break the site guidelines. People with majority opinions don't usually do it that way. They're more likely to be self-righteous. Either way, though, users here need to follow the guidelines regardless of what their opinions are. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        OCASM 6y ago
        It's always easy to willfully misconstrue what opposition says to justify their silencing. It's exactly what we're seeing at a large scale.
        dang 6y ago
        You're skipping that you repeatedly broke the site guidelines and repeatedly ignored our requests to stop. What do you think we should do when people break the rules and flout polite requests by moderators?
SpaceRaccoon 6y ago
> just as we don’t tolerate violence in the street. That's interesting: did you condemn the riots in the streets the past year? I have a hunch that you defended them. Looking forward to being proven wrong.
- FridgeSeal 6y ago
  For the vast majority, the BLM protests (which I assume you are referring to?) set out to be-and were-peaceful. Leadership made a big deal about remaining peaceful. Things escalated most of the time when the _police_ instigated attacks. Given the racial tensions, and generally charged atmosphere I am absolutely not surprised rioting broke out. Lets remember that low-impact/low-disruption protests had been done prior, and were not met with attention or change they were ignored and sidelined. Cripple peoples ability to be heard and they will use increasingly forceful methods to be heard. This is _not_ a case of protestors rocking up to a street and beating on random pedestrians - which didn't happen and is the kind of "violence in the streets" I'm talking about. In my opinion some broken windows and torched stores are less important than peoples human rights - if in the course of a legitimate protest some shopfronts are destroyed, I don't have an issue with this. I do have an issue with people using a protest (which went to lengths to remain peaceful) as a cover/excuse to destroy things "just because" or to loot - this I absolutely condemn, as it does nobody any favours and takes away from the issue at hand.

OCASM 6y ago

In those cases it's the business owner who decides. What happens when the decision comes after a mob puts pressure on the owner to drop that costumer or else?

bjustin 6y ago
If there is a market for it, presumably some business out of reach of the mob in question will take up the mantle for the money. If there's no money in it, then the market is deciding that the market doesn't want the opinions in question. The market still decides in the end.
- OCASM 6y ago
  Unless they're too scared of harrassment by the mob, specially a state-induced one: https://nitter.net/AOC/status/1347679332014161920#m https://nitter.net/AOC/status/1347679332014161920#m
  - dang 6y ago
    We've banned this account for continuing to do political flamewar after we specifically asked you not to. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25695444 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25695444
    - OCASM 6y ago
      So dissenting is now considered doing political flamewar? Ok.
      - dang 6y ago
        Gratuitous provocation and name-calling are not dissent. You can express dissenting views without doing those things, and users here are required to. There is a link, though: people with minority opinions are sometimes so frustrated with the majority that they lash out in frustration in ways that break the site guidelines. People with majority opinions don't usually do it that way. They're more likely to be self-righteous. Either way, though, users here need to follow the guidelines regardless of what their opinions are. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
        OCASM 6y ago
        It's always easy to willfully misconstrue what opposition says to justify their silencing. It's exactly what we're seeing at a large scale.
        dang 6y ago
        You're skipping that you repeatedly broke the site guidelines and repeatedly ignored our requests to stop. What do you think we should do when people break the rules and flout polite requests by moderators?

SpaceRaccoon 6y ago

> just as we don’t tolerate violence in the street. That's interesting: did you condemn the riots in the streets the past year? I have a hunch that you defended them. Looking forward to being proven wrong.

FridgeSeal 6y ago
For the vast majority, the BLM protests (which I assume you are referring to?) set out to be-and were-peaceful. Leadership made a big deal about remaining peaceful. Things escalated most of the time when the _police_ instigated attacks. Given the racial tensions, and generally charged atmosphere I am absolutely not surprised rioting broke out. Lets remember that low-impact/low-disruption protests had been done prior, and were not met with attention or change they were ignored and sidelined. Cripple peoples ability to be heard and they will use increasingly forceful methods to be heard. This is _not_ a case of protestors rocking up to a street and beating on random pedestrians - which didn't happen and is the kind of "violence in the streets" I'm talking about. In my opinion some broken windows and torched stores are less important than peoples human rights - if in the course of a legitimate protest some shopfronts are destroyed, I don't have an issue with this. I do have an issue with people using a protest (which went to lengths to remain peaceful) as a cover/excuse to destroy things "just because" or to loot - this I absolutely condemn, as it does nobody any favours and takes away from the issue at hand.