10 ms·

If society has decided that your political campaign is so toxic that no one wants to do business with you, should private entities be forced to deal with you if

by Jochim 6y ago

If society has decided that your political campaign is so toxic that no one wants to do business with you, should private entities be forced to deal with you if you are not a protected class? Parler being booted is society's reaction to a movement that has been getting more extreme for the last 5 years. I'll note the irony that many of the people complaining about companies refusing to deal with Parler are the same people that support bakeries being able to deny the business of people in a protected class.

cambalache 6y ago
Who is society? The coastal rich liberal tech owners?
- Jochim 6y ago
  Doesn't seem like any other groups are interested in supporting them either or else they wouldn't have any issue paying to self host/finding a willing provider.
  - cambalache 6y ago
    So the same dynamics that has happened through history when one group is qualified as "untouchable" and any association with them, even if purely commercial, will bring retaliation.
    - vharuck 6y ago
      We have to distinguish between those who are untouchable because of circumstances beyond their control (lineage, birthplace, disabilities) and those who are pariahs because of their behavior (criminals, militant anarchists, that mean old guy who sits on his porch with a shotgun). I have sympathy for the former, but not the latter. While it would be kind to reach out to the latter group and help them mesh with society, there's no requirement anyone has to nor a guarantee the pariahs would want to mesh.
      - cambalache 6y ago
        > We have to distinguish between... No, we dont have to distinguish that. Your weak premise would justify the discrimination of atheists, anarchists, monarchists, pentecostals,marxists, epicureans... among thousands of other groups. I dont really understand why it is so complicated. At individual and private level I can decide who will I spend my time with, who I will invite to my place, go to the beach etc, with no coercion and I expect everybody else to have that right too. At public level I have the expectation to serve all the people the same (ceteris paribus) unless I am forced by current legislation to not do so (like selling alcohol to a minor). I would not extend that prohibition to a person who can request my services legally , if the person is going to pay and if he is going to behave like any other customer. If I manage a 7/11 I would not create an ideological purity test to figure out if I will sell you gas or a soda and I think society will be way better if everybody does that too.
- jf22 6y ago
  Many people make up these companies. It's not like there is a secret cabal of left-leaning tech owners that get together and make decisions like this.
  - alecbz 6y ago
    It's not an explicit conspiracy but there are incredibly strong political bubbles in the US.
    - jf22 6y ago
      Yes, of course, that's how humans work. But these bubbles are often considered as a singular group moving as one, when in reality they are separate organizations and individuals who agree with each other.
      - alecbz 6y ago
        Sure. But my point is that it's not correct to go from "multiple independent organizations think this way" to "basically everyone must think this way", as if those multiple organizations represent a random sample of the population.
  - prepend 6y ago
    In the case of Facebook and Google, their founders have voting majority shares and literally control the companies. It’s not a secret cabal of left-leaning owners, it is a publicly known set of left-leaning tech owners. I’m not saying they act evilly, but Facebook is literally controlled by one person who cannot be outvoted by every other owner. And Google is controlled by two as well [0]. [0] https://fortune.com/2019/12/05/page-and-brin-google-control/ https://fortune.com/2019/12/05/page-and-brin-google-control/
    - jf22 6y ago
      Ok, that doesn't mean there is a cabal of party operatives and big tech working together...
nec4b 6y ago
Society hasn't decided anything unless you think a self selected group of people now represents the whole society. The Democratic party and its business lackeys decided to remove political in business opposition/competition with impunity and the Republican party being mostly indifferent about it.
- Jochim 6y ago
  > Republican party being mostly indifferent about it. Well it's hard to argue against it when the people being cut out are trying to pipe-bomb your headquarters as well as the Democrats :/.
- jf22 6y ago
  >The Democratic party and its business lackeys See this is part of the problem. You are lumping together two different organizations that are nothing alike as somehow part of the same cabal. Many different people from many different groups and organizations are reaching the same conclusion about Trump and the rise of violent right wing extremism. Different parts of society are agreeing, and then in each of these parts there are individuals making decisions.
  - nec4b 6y ago
    I'm not the one lumping them together, they lumped themselves together the same way unions and the Democratic party did a long time ago. Revolving doors, clientelism, business opportunities, power struggle,...
    - jf22 6y ago
      What? People who agree and have a common interests are not immediately part of a group who move as one.
      - nec4b 6y ago
        > People who agree and have a common interests... > Revolving doors, clientelism, business opportunities, power struggle,... Add activism, donations, candidate support and cooperating with them on a local and global level. Seems like a text book definition of a political party.
mard 6y ago
There are thousands of bakeries out there, but only a handful of payment processors.
- Jochim 6y ago
  If they manage to piss all of them off there's always bank transfer/postal cheque.
yurielt 6y ago
There is a clear difference between people clearly going to the same bakery over and over to harass and old guy, and being unable to actually do politics because of the technocrats and their cronies don’t be dishonest and don’t assume things for which you do not have proof. Not only that but if society decides that the Earth is flat would you agree with any decisions stemming from that, assuming there is a thing such as “society deciding” of course. I will note the irony about people saying that we should respect society “decisions” when they didn’t respect Trump becoming president since day one . Come on pal drop the dishonesty.
- Jochim 6y ago
  > There is a clear difference between people clearly going to the same bakery over and over to harass and old guy,There is a clear difference between people clearly going to the same bakery over and over to harass and old guy. Look back a few decades and this is exactly the same argument that segregationists were using. You've basically just said: "That shopowner has a right not to deal with blacks, why do they keep harassing that poor man by trying to buy his goods?". > I will note the irony about people saying that we should respect society “decisions” when they didn’t respect Trump becoming president since day one . Come on pal drop the dishonesty. Those people didn't leave pipe-bombs at both party headquarters, call for their own Vice President to be hanged, or storm the Capitol building though. It's both transparent and dishonest to try to equate the two. Especially when you consider that Trump was one of the people peddling the birther nonsense about Obama and that pretty much everyone involved with the trump campaign was actually found guilty of some form of corruption. Trump himself has only escaped charges by virtue of being the President.
  - yurielt 6y ago
    Except he was not denying them service just not engaging artistically lol stop being dishonest and trying to compare him to racists that denied service when he only denied artistic expression. From your comments it is quite obvious that you actually know a lot about the case. However you keep conveniently just leaving things out to fit your framing, please just drop the charade and the dishonesty.
prepend 6y ago
> If society has decided that your political campaign is so toxic that no one wants to do business with you, should private entities be forced to deal with you if you are not a protected class? I think this is the issue though, right. Elections represent what society wants. If 5 corporations get to decide you’re toxic and that prevents you from campaigning, what regulation will help insure this authority isn’t abused or misused? I think it’s also worth noting the irony that many of the people complaining that bakers should be forced to bake a cake are supporting stripe being able to refuse service.
- Jochim 6y ago
  > I think it’s also worth noting the irony that many of the people complaining that bakers should be forced to bake a cake are supporting stripe being able to refuse service. It's only ironic if you choose to ignore the fact that one of those cases involves discrimination against a protected class and the other does not. If you don't ignore that fact then the irony is only applicable from those who were espousing the "free market, free speech" position in the previous case.
  - prepend 6y ago
    Actually neither involves protected classes. At the time of the case, sexual orientation wasn’t protected. Fortunately, it was added as a protected class. But even if it was a protected class at the time of the suite, I think the opinion was that religious rights (another protected class) come into play. For me, this seems to expose that some people aren’t arguing from first principles but kind of change their position based on a pre-conceived notion. So just like people now bringing up that looting isn’t so bad after the capital riot/insurrection were against rioting in situations over the summer. It seems odd to me, or at least irrational, that someone could be against rioting for BLM purposes but for rioting for conspiracy theories. Or that someone could be against a baker’s ability to not serve a gay couple, but for a hosting company not serving an asshole megaphone company. So just as people, rightly I think, were arguing that discrimination against sexual orientation should be a protected class and thus illegal; people now are arguing that net neutrality/free speech should have regulation, change in rights. It’s not “ironic” in either sense.

by Jochim 6y ago

cambalache 6y ago

Who is society? The coastal rich liberal tech owners?

Jochim 6y ago
Doesn't seem like any other groups are interested in supporting them either or else they wouldn't have any issue paying to self host/finding a willing provider.
- cambalache 6y ago
  So the same dynamics that has happened through history when one group is qualified as "untouchable" and any association with them, even if purely commercial, will bring retaliation.
  - vharuck 6y ago
    We have to distinguish between those who are untouchable because of circumstances beyond their control (lineage, birthplace, disabilities) and those who are pariahs because of their behavior (criminals, militant anarchists, that mean old guy who sits on his porch with a shotgun). I have sympathy for the former, but not the latter. While it would be kind to reach out to the latter group and help them mesh with society, there's no requirement anyone has to nor a guarantee the pariahs would want to mesh.
    - cambalache 6y ago
      > We have to distinguish between... No, we dont have to distinguish that. Your weak premise would justify the discrimination of atheists, anarchists, monarchists, pentecostals,marxists, epicureans... among thousands of other groups. I dont really understand why it is so complicated. At individual and private level I can decide who will I spend my time with, who I will invite to my place, go to the beach etc, with no coercion and I expect everybody else to have that right too. At public level I have the expectation to serve all the people the same (ceteris paribus) unless I am forced by current legislation to not do so (like selling alcohol to a minor). I would not extend that prohibition to a person who can request my services legally , if the person is going to pay and if he is going to behave like any other customer. If I manage a 7/11 I would not create an ideological purity test to figure out if I will sell you gas or a soda and I think society will be way better if everybody does that too.
jf22 6y ago
Many people make up these companies. It's not like there is a secret cabal of left-leaning tech owners that get together and make decisions like this.
- alecbz 6y ago
  It's not an explicit conspiracy but there are incredibly strong political bubbles in the US.
  - jf22 6y ago
    Yes, of course, that's how humans work. But these bubbles are often considered as a singular group moving as one, when in reality they are separate organizations and individuals who agree with each other.
    - alecbz 6y ago
      Sure. But my point is that it's not correct to go from "multiple independent organizations think this way" to "basically everyone must think this way", as if those multiple organizations represent a random sample of the population.
- prepend 6y ago
  In the case of Facebook and Google, their founders have voting majority shares and literally control the companies. It’s not a secret cabal of left-leaning owners, it is a publicly known set of left-leaning tech owners. I’m not saying they act evilly, but Facebook is literally controlled by one person who cannot be outvoted by every other owner. And Google is controlled by two as well [0]. [0] https://fortune.com/2019/12/05/page-and-brin-google-control/ https://fortune.com/2019/12/05/page-and-brin-google-control/
  - jf22 6y ago
    Ok, that doesn't mean there is a cabal of party operatives and big tech working together...

nec4b 6y ago

Society hasn't decided anything unless you think a self selected group of people now represents the whole society. The Democratic party and its business lackeys decided to remove political in business opposition/competition with impunity and the Republican party being mostly indifferent about it.

Jochim 6y ago
> Republican party being mostly indifferent about it. Well it's hard to argue against it when the people being cut out are trying to pipe-bomb your headquarters as well as the Democrats :/.
jf22 6y ago
>The Democratic party and its business lackeys See this is part of the problem. You are lumping together two different organizations that are nothing alike as somehow part of the same cabal. Many different people from many different groups and organizations are reaching the same conclusion about Trump and the rise of violent right wing extremism. Different parts of society are agreeing, and then in each of these parts there are individuals making decisions.
- nec4b 6y ago
  I'm not the one lumping them together, they lumped themselves together the same way unions and the Democratic party did a long time ago. Revolving doors, clientelism, business opportunities, power struggle,...
  - jf22 6y ago
    What? People who agree and have a common interests are not immediately part of a group who move as one.
    - nec4b 6y ago
      > People who agree and have a common interests... > Revolving doors, clientelism, business opportunities, power struggle,... Add activism, donations, candidate support and cooperating with them on a local and global level. Seems like a text book definition of a political party.

mard 6y ago

There are thousands of bakeries out there, but only a handful of payment processors.

Jochim 6y ago
If they manage to piss all of them off there's always bank transfer/postal cheque.

yurielt 6y ago

There is a clear difference between people clearly going to the same bakery over and over to harass and old guy, and being unable to actually do politics because of the technocrats and their cronies don’t be dishonest and don’t assume things for which you do not have proof. Not only that but if society decides that the Earth is flat would you agree with any decisions stemming from that, assuming there is a thing such as “society deciding” of course. I will note the irony about people saying that we should respect society “decisions” when they didn’t respect Trump becoming president since day one . Come on pal drop the dishonesty.

Jochim 6y ago
> There is a clear difference between people clearly going to the same bakery over and over to harass and old guy,There is a clear difference between people clearly going to the same bakery over and over to harass and old guy. Look back a few decades and this is exactly the same argument that segregationists were using. You've basically just said: "That shopowner has a right not to deal with blacks, why do they keep harassing that poor man by trying to buy his goods?". > I will note the irony about people saying that we should respect society “decisions” when they didn’t respect Trump becoming president since day one . Come on pal drop the dishonesty. Those people didn't leave pipe-bombs at both party headquarters, call for their own Vice President to be hanged, or storm the Capitol building though. It's both transparent and dishonest to try to equate the two. Especially when you consider that Trump was one of the people peddling the birther nonsense about Obama and that pretty much everyone involved with the trump campaign was actually found guilty of some form of corruption. Trump himself has only escaped charges by virtue of being the President.
- yurielt 6y ago
  Except he was not denying them service just not engaging artistically lol stop being dishonest and trying to compare him to racists that denied service when he only denied artistic expression. From your comments it is quite obvious that you actually know a lot about the case. However you keep conveniently just leaving things out to fit your framing, please just drop the charade and the dishonesty.

prepend 6y ago

> If society has decided that your political campaign is so toxic that no one wants to do business with you, should private entities be forced to deal with you if you are not a protected class? I think this is the issue though, right. Elections represent what society wants. If 5 corporations get to decide you’re toxic and that prevents you from campaigning, what regulation will help insure this authority isn’t abused or misused? I think it’s also worth noting the irony that many of the people complaining that bakers should be forced to bake a cake are supporting stripe being able to refuse service.

Jochim 6y ago
> I think it’s also worth noting the irony that many of the people complaining that bakers should be forced to bake a cake are supporting stripe being able to refuse service. It's only ironic if you choose to ignore the fact that one of those cases involves discrimination against a protected class and the other does not. If you don't ignore that fact then the irony is only applicable from those who were espousing the "free market, free speech" position in the previous case.
- prepend 6y ago
  Actually neither involves protected classes. At the time of the case, sexual orientation wasn’t protected. Fortunately, it was added as a protected class. But even if it was a protected class at the time of the suite, I think the opinion was that religious rights (another protected class) come into play. For me, this seems to expose that some people aren’t arguing from first principles but kind of change their position based on a pre-conceived notion. So just like people now bringing up that looting isn’t so bad after the capital riot/insurrection were against rioting in situations over the summer. It seems odd to me, or at least irrational, that someone could be against rioting for BLM purposes but for rioting for conspiracy theories. Or that someone could be against a baker’s ability to not serve a gay couple, but for a hosting company not serving an asshole megaphone company. So just as people, rightly I think, were arguing that discrimination against sexual orientation should be a protected class and thus illegal; people now are arguing that net neutrality/free speech should have regulation, change in rights. It’s not “ironic” in either sense.