3 ms·

Honestly: fuck off. Anti-semtism is immoral and homosexuality is not. Homosexuality is protected under civil rights laws while racists are not. So no, kicking o

Honestly: fuck off. Anti-semtism is immoral and homosexuality is not. Homosexuality is protected under civil rights laws while racists are not. So no, kicking off a business for catering to homosexuals should be (and in many cases is) illegal. It should not be illegal to kick off a business for catering to Nazis. This false equivalence is bullshit and you are perfectly aware that it’s bullshit.

umvi 6y ago
I made up a hypothetical future where political winds and morals shift to something you disagree with to expose the flaw in your logic.
- ojnabieoot 6y ago
  You made up a truly dystopian future where many norms and laws have fallen by the wayside... including existing legal protections for gay consumers and entrepreneurs. So I don’t think your point is as great as you think it is! I agree that such a future would be bad. Congratulations. As an entrepreneur I would refuse to do business with anyone who had a Parler account and I am honestly a bit bothered by this authoritarian suggestion that the state should force me to do business with racists.
xvector 6y ago
The point is that homosexuality has indeed been viewed as odious and immoral in the past, and platforms like Grindr would have been eliminated just as easily as Parler some time ago (on some bullshit TOS violations, no less). The real concern here is having Big Tech decide what you’re allowed to believe in. AWS et al should be treated as a public utility not bound by a private TOS, unless you want AWS to control what information you receive and who you can associate with.
- ojnabieoot 6y ago
  > AWS et al should be treated as a public utility not bound by a private TOS How ridiculous. Individuals need water, heat, and electricity to survive in the 21st century. I would argue they also need a cell phone and internet access. Individuals do not need cloud computing services. For-profit companies want AWS because they can use it to make money. This is not a good basis to form a utility.
  - xvector 6y ago
    Should Verizon be able to hang up your calls if they don’t like who you’re talking to? Clearly, rights and needs extend beyond the basics of food, water, and shelter. Preventing corporations from dictating what information you’re allowed to access and who you’re allowed to talk to is as essential to a free world as anything else. For better or worse, these “for profit companies” have become the de facto replacement of the town square, and if we cannot have free speech on these platforms then we cannot have free speech at all, practically speaking.

umvi 6y ago

I made up a hypothetical future where political winds and morals shift to something you disagree with to expose the flaw in your logic.

ojnabieoot 6y ago
You made up a truly dystopian future where many norms and laws have fallen by the wayside... including existing legal protections for gay consumers and entrepreneurs. So I don’t think your point is as great as you think it is! I agree that such a future would be bad. Congratulations. As an entrepreneur I would refuse to do business with anyone who had a Parler account and I am honestly a bit bothered by this authoritarian suggestion that the state should force me to do business with racists.

xvector 6y ago

The point is that homosexuality has indeed been viewed as odious and immoral in the past, and platforms like Grindr would have been eliminated just as easily as Parler some time ago (on some bullshit TOS violations, no less). The real concern here is having Big Tech decide what you’re allowed to believe in. AWS et al should be treated as a public utility not bound by a private TOS, unless you want AWS to control what information you receive and who you can associate with.

ojnabieoot 6y ago
> AWS et al should be treated as a public utility not bound by a private TOS How ridiculous. Individuals need water, heat, and electricity to survive in the 21st century. I would argue they also need a cell phone and internet access. Individuals do not need cloud computing services. For-profit companies want AWS because they can use it to make money. This is not a good basis to form a utility.
- xvector 6y ago
  Should Verizon be able to hang up your calls if they don’t like who you’re talking to? Clearly, rights and needs extend beyond the basics of food, water, and shelter. Preventing corporations from dictating what information you’re allowed to access and who you’re allowed to talk to is as essential to a free world as anything else. For better or worse, these “for profit companies” have become the de facto replacement of the town square, and if we cannot have free speech on these platforms then we cannot have free speech at all, practically speaking.