5 ms·

Just make your own platform bro Just create your own online shop bro Just host your own platform bro Just host your own videos bro Just make your own DDoS p

Just make your own platform bro Just create your own online shop bro Just host your own platform bro Just host your own videos bro Just make your own DDoS protection bro Just make your own ISP bro Just create your own law firm bro Just create our own payment processing bro

esoterica 6y ago
If you’re a principled free market conservative, then all of those are valid responses. Welcome to the free market at work! Sometimes market forces work against you but you don’t get to complain about it.
- copperwater69 6y ago
  When all of those happen to you and are supported by the other half of the country are you more likely to try and integrate or secede?
  - abernard1 6y ago
    > Just create your own government bro (I agree with you. The logical conclusions are sad.)
- ahallock 6y ago
  Had we all but vestiges of a free market, these would be valid responses, but we don't.
  - esoterica 6y ago
    We still have enough of a free market that Stripe can legally do this.
    - ahallock 6y ago
      What's legal is not set by the free market
- razius 6y ago
  This is what happens when people don't read and just spew stuff. Go read "Wealth of Nations" and see Adam Smith's words about monopolies.
Jonnax 6y ago
The trump campaign raised $200 million from soliciting donations to challenge the elections. Maybe they could have used some of that money to do just that? There's plenty of money to at least try.
nobody9999 6y ago
Your point is well taken. However, forcing people or organizations (which are groups of people) to host or support speech/activities they do not wish to support restricts the rights of those people/organizations. If you can force them to give up their rights, others can force you to give up your rights. I can't support that at all. What's more, the idea that there's some sort of conspiracy/cabal that spans every corporation, industry and profession to murder free speech is a pretty far-fetched one. There's an old saw that says, "if everyone around you appears to be an asshole, perhaps it's you and not everyone else." Not obligatory but apropos: https://xkcd.com/1357 https://xkcd.com/1357
- leereeves 6y ago
  My objection to that argument is that the companies claim that the content on the website isn't their speech when invoking Section 230, then claim that it is their speech in order to invoke the First Amendment. Section 230 says: > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. So how can a company have free speech rights regarding content if they aren't the speaker?
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    Section 230 is irrelevant to the discussion in this case[1]. Section 230 refers to the ability of one party to sue over the speech of a third party. That's not in play here at all. Rather, this is about freedom of association. Stripe can associate (do business, in this case) with whom it chooses (with some restrictions[2], but this isn't one of them), and that freedom of association is protected by the constitution[0]. [0] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1_2_13_1/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1_2_13_1/ [1] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
    - 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

esoterica 6y ago

If you’re a principled free market conservative, then all of those are valid responses. Welcome to the free market at work! Sometimes market forces work against you but you don’t get to complain about it.

copperwater69 6y ago
When all of those happen to you and are supported by the other half of the country are you more likely to try and integrate or secede?
- abernard1 6y ago
  > Just create your own government bro (I agree with you. The logical conclusions are sad.)
ahallock 6y ago
Had we all but vestiges of a free market, these would be valid responses, but we don't.
- esoterica 6y ago
  We still have enough of a free market that Stripe can legally do this.
  - ahallock 6y ago
    What's legal is not set by the free market
razius 6y ago
This is what happens when people don't read and just spew stuff. Go read "Wealth of Nations" and see Adam Smith's words about monopolies.

Jonnax 6y ago

The trump campaign raised $200 million from soliciting donations to challenge the elections. Maybe they could have used some of that money to do just that? There's plenty of money to at least try.

nobody9999 6y ago

Your point is well taken. However, forcing people or organizations (which are groups of people) to host or support speech/activities they do not wish to support restricts the rights of those people/organizations. If you can force them to give up their rights, others can force you to give up your rights. I can't support that at all. What's more, the idea that there's some sort of conspiracy/cabal that spans every corporation, industry and profession to murder free speech is a pretty far-fetched one. There's an old saw that says, "if everyone around you appears to be an asshole, perhaps it's you and not everyone else." Not obligatory but apropos: https://xkcd.com/1357 https://xkcd.com/1357

leereeves 6y ago
My objection to that argument is that the companies claim that the content on the website isn't their speech when invoking Section 230, then claim that it is their speech in order to invoke the First Amendment. Section 230 says: > No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. So how can a company have free speech rights regarding content if they aren't the speaker?
- nobody9999 6y ago
  Section 230 is irrelevant to the discussion in this case[1]. Section 230 refers to the ability of one party to sue over the speech of a third party. That's not in play here at all. Rather, this is about freedom of association. Stripe can associate (do business, in this case) with whom it chooses (with some restrictions[2], but this isn't one of them), and that freedom of association is protected by the constitution[0]. [0] https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1_2_13_1/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/amdt1_2_13_1/ [1] https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-section-230-communications-decency-act.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200531/23325444617/hello... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_group
  - 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]