6 ms·
Good. If corporations are people then they absolutely should have the right to exercise whatever free speech they want to. Nobody is preventing those deplorab
by Cookingboy 6y ago
Good.
If corporations are people then they absolutely should have the right to exercise whatever free speech they want to.
Nobody is preventing those deplorables to say whatever the hell they want, but also nobody is obliged to provide services and platform to those people to spread those toxic messages.
According to /r/conservative the entire tech industry is ran by leftists, and leftists are stupid, unemployed losers who live in their moms' basements. So it should be easy for them to recreate their entire own tech infrastructure to host whatever nuclear waste dumpster fire app they want, after all it should be very easy for "smart, hardworking real Americans" like them. Hey, capitalism is all about competitions right? Last time I checked there may even be some money involved in the tech industry so I'm actually a little puzzled why they haven't done so already.
If you think I sound like a smug douchebag in this comment that's because it's exactly how I feel from reading these news these past few days.
- koolba 6y agoSaying “good” here is like saying it was good for a baker to refuse making a custom cake for a gay wedding. Just because they have the right to do it does not mean it’s a good thing.
- tshaddox 6y agoWhy do you say those two things are equivalent? Why can’t it be good to ban nazis planning violence on one social network, and bad to refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding? Those are very distinct things.
- jimbob45 6y agoBecause they’re the same thing. One group gets special treatment and the other doesn’t and somehow that’s fair. Edit: Nazis don’t exist anymore, guys. That’s a 40s German political group. You can’t be a Nazi anymore than you can be a Whig. You could be someone who agrees with 40s-era Nazi ideology but, again, you would still lack membership in the now-defunct party. I realize name-calling is central to attacking Parler sympathizers but at least be accurate.
- bduerst 6y agoThe difference being you do not get to choose your sexual orientation, but you do get to choose your political affiliations and violent speech.
- throwaway201103 6y agoYou can also choose your baker, so find one who thinks like you do.
- bduerst 6y agoAnd when you can't because there is systemic bias?
- tshaddox 6y agoI’ll try an even more obvious example. Why can’t it be good to put murderers in prison, and bad to put innocent people in prison?
- alphabettsy 6y agoThe nazis are getting special treatment. If they were brown terrorists planning any kind of attacks they would be hit with drone strikes or held at Guantánamo.
- spoonjim 6y agoBecause if you give a government the ability to draw the line between those two, then, in 2017, for example, that line would be drawn by Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, and Paul Ryan.
- tshaddox 6y agoThe fact that a line could be drawn badly is not a great reason to not draw the line well. People who didn’t commit murder can also be convicted of and punished for murder, but that’s not a great slippery slope argument for never punishing murderers.
- sanxiyn 6y agoIt's in fact a great argument against death penalty for murder, and such argument is commonly made.
- tshaddox 6y agoThat’s only an argument against the death penalty if accompanied by another argument for why the death penalty is distinct from other forms of punishment, otherwise we would conclude that all legal penalties are bad for the same reasons.
- sanxiyn 6y agoParler is not nazi, Parler is simply hosting. So in fact it's worse: it's like closing down the entire mall hosting the bakery, not just the bakery.
- throwaway201103 6y agoIn both cases it's a matter of being able to choose whether to participate in a message you don't agree with.
- tshaddox 6y agoShould web hosting providers participate in messages they don’t agree with by literally distributing those messages?
- throwaway201103 6y agoNo, I mean AWS can choose to not host Parler, so why can't a baker choose to not make a gay wedding cake?
- klyrs 6y agoGay wedding cakes don't kill cops.
- quickthrowman 6y agoWhat do you mean? The Supreme Court sided with the baker.[0] So why shouldn’t AWS be allowed not to host Parler if the baker can choose not to make a gay wedding cake? [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court...
- tw04 6y agoIn one case it's a message of love. In the other it's a message of hate. You're personally welcome to treat them both the same, but I think you'll find most of society will treat the messages very differently. If you can't understand why I'd imagine you're going to spend a lot of your life being extremely confused, angry and frustrated.
- throwaway201103 6y ago(I can't see the flagged post that's at the top of this subthread so if this is a bit out of context that is why) If the baker thinks it's a message of sin, then what? It's not like selling them a room at a hotel or any other standard thing. This is a custom crafted item and message that they are being asked to help propagate, and one that they disagree with.
- garmaine 6y ago“It’s okay to ban speech I find offensive” becomes “ it’s OK to ban speech deemed offensive by this committee” when it becomes policy. Then the committee becomes a target for influence or corruption, because if you control the committee then you control speech. This is bad whether we are talking about governments or corporations, if those corporations have monopoly or oligarchy control over platforms of discourse. That’s why it’s generally a good idea to only ban speech which is threatening direct violence, or inciting violence, or other very specific things. “Ban fascists” is too broad.
- winrid 6y agoParler is just for Nazis?
- xmaaayyy 6y agoI see your point but I think the context matters. A gay wedding is not the same as inciting violence.
- lumpenprole 6y agoIt is to people who get furious at the thought of a gay wedding.
- anderiv 6y agoSheesh, there’s a wee bit of difference between a baker refusing to bake a cake and people threatening to kill others (and the platform refusing to remove that content). You can’t both-sides this one.
- paulddraper 6y ago> people threatening to kill others Are we talking left-wing threats on Twitter or right-wing threats on Parler?
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- Cookingboy 6y ago>Just because they have the right to do it does not means it’s a good thing. I'm sorry if I weren't clear. That was my personal reaction and my personal opinion, not an objective evaluation of the situation (since I'm pretty sure it's not "good" for anyone working at Parlor lol). But considering the kind of damage those people are doing to the society and I just happen to live in the exact same society, yeah, in my very humble opinion they can royally go get fucked.
- zaksoup 6y agoI see this comparison a lot and I want to point out exactly why it’s false: We oppose discrimination against protected classes because generally we recognize that people cannot elect into or opt out easily of those classes. It’s generally greed upon that people do not choose to be gay. Parler’s users choose to post white supremacist content. I see no contradiction in insisting that gay people be served under the law while advocating that private companies retain their right to refuse service to White supremacists. The Supreme Court has backed this up: discrimination on the basis of sex, which includes sexuality, is illegal, while discrimination on the basis of political ideology is not.
- chr1 6y agoThis is not a good argument, as it implies that if science finds a way to change sexual preference then the protection should be revoked. Also political views can not be changed easily either, it requires exposure to facts during a long time in a way that would circumvent brain's desire to be right. But more importantly the right of companies to refuse service as a substitution to real justice is not going to fix society, it will only make things worse when bad guys get the power. Justice requires rules, not arbitrary actions by private companies.
- throwaway201103 6y agoSo the baker can refuse to bake cakes for Democrats?
- quickthrowman 6y agoYes, Democrats are not a protected class. Political party membership in the US is voluntary.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- woodruffw 6y agoThis has been repeated time and time again, but once more: sexual and gender identities are protected classes in the United States. Being generally reprehensible isn't.
- kibwen 6y ago> sexual and gender identities are protected classes in the United States This isn't the case at the federal level, which is why the "gay wedding cake" event could be settled in favor of the bakers. It's currently up to individual states to determine whether sexual orientation, etc. is a protected class. "U.S. federal law protects individuals from discrimination or harassment based on the following nine protected classes: sex, race, age, disability, color, creed, national origin, religion, or genetic information. [...] Although it is not required by federal law, state law and employer policies may also protect employees from harassment or discrimination based on marital status or sexual orientation." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
- nautilus12 6y agoSome people define generally reprehensible as having bad hygiene. Should that be a bannable offense? You cant just ban people on the basis of subject terms like this
- woodruffw 6y agoIn the context of running a business? Yes. If your body odor is so bad that you interfere with my ability to provide services, it doesn't seem to be a particular stretch for me to deny you access.
- donaldtheduck 6y ago'Deplorables'? And you're calling them toxic? :'D
- paulddraper 6y agoExactly. They've been saying stuff like "Burn it down, burn it all down " "If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f*cking thing down." Unconscionable. AWS has terms of services and if you violate them, you can expect them to follow them. And it makes total sense that they would do it with plenty of warning like 24 hours after hosting then for years. You just can't criticize a business like AWS for doing that.
- MAGZine 6y agoThis has nothing to do with corporations being people. This and citizens united have nothing to do with each other. Businesses do not need to give you a platform just because. They reserve the right to do business, or not do business, with whomever they choose. Don't conflate that with "being people."
- systemvoltage 6y agoI think op is highlighting the double-standard of conservative principles. "We want to have free enterprise and no government intervention except when free enterprise decides to ban them for being assholes."
- Wolfenstein98k 6y agoThe conservatives aren't the ones flipping here though. They're complaining, not suing. The flip is coming from people who opposed "private companies owe no one their services" when it was Masterpiece Cake Shop, but now love it.
- alphabettsy 6y agoMaybe. I think arguments without context and nuance are unhelpful.
- tidepod12 6y agoI agree that Parler was deplorable and needed to go, but I keep seeing this "private companies can do whatever they want" argument, and it bothers me. For the sake of discussion, would you feel the same way if the CEOs of AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast woke up tomorrow and decided they want to unilaterally block all of their customers from accessing any news sites they deem to be against their political leanings (just for the sake of discussion, let's say they block all access to MSNBC, CNN, WaPo, HuffPo, and the like). If that happened, it would effectively cut off most Americans from being able to access news unless it agreed with those CEOs' political agenda. Would we all still be saying "well it's totally fine because AT&T et al are private companies"? It seems obvious to me that sometimes companies become so large and have so much influence that they should not be allowed to just ban/block whoever they want, even if they are private. I'm not sure if AWS in particular is at that point, but the App Store and Google Play Store certainly feel close. I'm not sure what the answer is, but I don't think this "they're private so they have no obligations to serve you" is valid at the scale of the companies in question.
- franklampard 6y ago> block MSNBC, CNN, WaPo, HuffPo I’ll be fine if these news sites were spewing hatred and fascism.
- tidepod12 6y agoThat's dodging the question. Let's say they weren't spewing hatred/fascism, and were reporting on critical information that Americans need to know. But AT&T blocks them. Is the response still going to be "AT&T is private, so it's okay because private companies can do whatever they want"?
- Cookingboy 6y ago>so it's okay because private companies can do whatever they want The point is they can't do whatever they want, just like Google/FB/Amazon actually can't do whatever they want. They can only do it if it's the will of the majority of their customers, employees and shareholders. Jack Dorsey or Jeff Bezos can't make decisions like this unilaterally without the support of all those parties.