4 ms·

Person C threatening to no longer communicate with person A, is different than person C threatening to do additional work to not conduct business with person A.

by chr1 6y ago

Person C threatening to no longer communicate with person A, is different than person C threatening to do additional work to not conduct business with person A. This kind of weaponization of everyday business does not lead to anything good. And just like we would condemn shop owner refusing to sell to a customer based on race/hair color/ clothing style we need to condemn twitter refusing service to sci-hub, to Trump, or even to actual murderers like Xi/Putin/Aliyev. Even your example of deplatforming is a very questionable practice, for instance it is often used by cults like Jehovah Witnesses to disallow followers talking with family members who leave the cult.

dleslie 6y ago
Freedom of Association is a fundamental freedom in many countries, for good reason. I'll happily avoid services that happily and stubbornly provide platforms to white nationalists and similar wretches, like Parler and Gab, and it certainly does not bother me that such platforms may not welcome me. Cults and similar certainly do use their ability to sever association to control their membership, but making that step and severing those bonds frees those same members from the harm of the cult.
- chr1 6y ago
  There is difference between association and between singling out someone and refusing service that would be at no additional cost to you. Twitter not only banned Trumps account, but also sci-hub account which is far from being a "wretch" and has contributed immensely to science. If we include social media service providers into "cancellation" wars the result will be too costly for the society, so we need better ways to fight against nationalists. Sacrificing freedom of speech to a group applying unknown rules, without a mechanism to appeal, will be harmful in the long run, even though this time it have produced a result we like.
  - dleslie 6y ago
    I fail to see the critical distinction between refusing to associate and refusing to engage with, or how the freedom of association can be upheld without the ability to refuse such engagement. We must provide social media services with protected freedoms, or we risk impinging upon the freedoms of its users. Users must be free to choose social media which allows them to _not_ associate or communicate with those they do not wish to. Nor should we compel them to support speech that they do not wish to, for similar reasons. If your concern is whether certain legal speech may be effectively completely deplatformed, then may I suggest the solution is federated social networking and not to impugn the freedom of association.

by chr1 6y ago

dleslie 6y ago

Freedom of Association is a fundamental freedom in many countries, for good reason. I'll happily avoid services that happily and stubbornly provide platforms to white nationalists and similar wretches, like Parler and Gab, and it certainly does not bother me that such platforms may not welcome me. Cults and similar certainly do use their ability to sever association to control their membership, but making that step and severing those bonds frees those same members from the harm of the cult.

chr1 6y ago
There is difference between association and between singling out someone and refusing service that would be at no additional cost to you. Twitter not only banned Trumps account, but also sci-hub account which is far from being a "wretch" and has contributed immensely to science. If we include social media service providers into "cancellation" wars the result will be too costly for the society, so we need better ways to fight against nationalists. Sacrificing freedom of speech to a group applying unknown rules, without a mechanism to appeal, will be harmful in the long run, even though this time it have produced a result we like.
- dleslie 6y ago
  I fail to see the critical distinction between refusing to associate and refusing to engage with, or how the freedom of association can be upheld without the ability to refuse such engagement. We must provide social media services with protected freedoms, or we risk impinging upon the freedoms of its users. Users must be free to choose social media which allows them to _not_ associate or communicate with those they do not wish to. Nor should we compel them to support speech that they do not wish to, for similar reasons. If your concern is whether certain legal speech may be effectively completely deplatformed, then may I suggest the solution is federated social networking and not to impugn the freedom of association.