5 ms·
Any service you are a customer of have clauses with say that they terminate your service if they want. Republicans have fought for people's right to do so. If
by Jonnax 6y ago
Any service you are a customer of have clauses with say that they terminate your service if they want.
Republicans have fought for people's right to do so. If you recall the case of baker that didn't want to make a gay wedding cake.
Now companies in the tech business are doing the same but to some of the groups that campaigned for that freedom.
Sure there's some argument that Twitter and Facebook are giant monopolies in the social media space.
But Salesforce? There's like a 1000 CRMs
- secfirstmd 6y agoTrue. And one big difference. You don't get to choose to be gay, have a disability or be from a minority or whatever. You do however choose to go to a Capital Hill riot or be complicit in supporting a dangerous man with autocratic tendencies.
- themaninthedark 6y agoYou do however choose your religion and yet that is a protected class... This is not a road we should be going down.
- jojobas 6y agoAny CRM supplier that would dare to deal with RNC would be barraged on social media and lose other business. That sounds a lot like USSR.
- maxehmookau 6y agoAt no point in human history has the USSR existed at the same time as modern social media.
- Jonnax 6y agoThere's a difference between people giving them negative press and the USSR. One was a government and the other is random people saying "I'm not going to be your customer anymore" There's also plenty of open source CRMs they could deploy. If they're afraid of the cloud they could rent a dedicated server or colocate. I'm sure if they host in a very pro Republican state they wouldn't have issues. They could even host it in another country if they wanted to as well. They've got a lot of freedom
- jojobas 6y agoThe implementation is different, the effect is the same: do something against the wishes of a small powerful group and you're a pariah. Not because many people think you've done something wrong, because these people would join you in the pariah ditch if they talk to you. That's not how it should be.
- confidantlake 6y agoI have my doubts the USSR would allow a private CRM supplier not controlled by the state to exist. Criticism of any sort on social media also seems dubious.
- heyoni 6y agoOh man, I totally forget how much overlap there is between communist Russia and cancel culture. /s just in case
- acegopher 6y agoThis isn't so much a case of allowing a baker to make a gay wedding cake, as that's discrimination. This is more like the bar kicking out an unruly patron, which is a terms-of-service violation. It's a big distinction, unless you want to argue that discrimination is ok.
- Jonnax 6y agoThe idea that was put forward by the Repuican party is that people had a right to refuse service. I'm not arguing that discrimination is okay. But the RNC did argue that. So it's entertaining to see.
- DaniloDias 6y agoI don’t follow your logic. 70m Americans are represented by the RNC. Your metaphor breaks immediately.
- locopati 6y agoare you sure that those 70m are who the RNC represents?
- DaniloDias 6y agoDownvotes here sadden me. If you insist on dehumanizing people you disagree with, violence is the only destination. We have got to stop demonizing people who don’t share our perspective. The outcome is predictable, avoidable and undesirable. Maintain the current course and you will pull everyone over the cliff with you.
- confidantlake 6y agoI get downvoted all the time, I never threaten violence over it. It may sting the ego a bit but come on man, it is just internet points.
- DaniloDias 6y agoThat is not what I was expressing. I am observing that this censorious behavior will predictably lead to others using violence. 70 million Americans voted for trump. How do you expect them to respond to this censorship? We have got to find a way to get along. Those who leverage their power this way will create the outcome they claim they want to prevent.
- ehnto 6y agoI would argue Facebook and Twitter's function as a social communications enabler can be replaced with any number of services, devices, even just real life. A meeting at a table is obviously not the same as a Facebook group chat, and a poster on a power pole isn't the same as a tweet, but if both platforms shut down tomorrow we'd just use one of the myriad other communication and organizing techniques we all have at our disposal. Notably, a building owner can take down your posters, and a hotel can refuse to host your conference.
- ballenf 6y agoAnd hand writing post it notes is the same as owning a newspaper?
- ehnto 6y agoI'm thinking of this from the users perspective, of course Facebook has an enormous amount of soft-power with it's media empire. That is an extremely worrying thing.
- insickness 6y agoThe same argument could be made to allow companies to do whatever they want, including discriminate based on race, etc. And in some sense, if the market were efficient enough, we wouldn't need laws against discrimination, sexual harassment, etc. The problem is that the market is not so efficient that you can just replace Facebook and Twitter with any number of services, at least not readily.
- ehnto 6y agoAdmittedly I am still on the fence about this whole thing (the denying of services), and can't fully articulate my thoughts. I do believe that these platforms are not infrastructure, that they are not public spaces, but I am no corporate apologist; from that view point, what we've done is given up control over our public discourse to corporate bodies, and I think that is the crux of the problem and what actually needs to be rectified. To put the problem into the physical world, it's as if we've decided to have all of our Town Halls and court hearings at a McDonalds, and now McDonalds won't let the people threatening violence in because they'd disturb the customers.
- themaninthedark 6y ago>Republicans have fought for people's right to do so. If you recall the case of baker that didn't want to make a gay wedding cake. IIRC The baker had no problem with supplying a cake, the only thing the baker did not want to do is custom decorate the cake. The nuance being, they would supply the base product to everyone but did not want to endorse something they object to.
- te_chris 6y agoA technical bullshit argument of the highest order. They want their money, so they clearly viewed them as just human enough to participate in commerce, but also not human enough to actually do what was asked of them.
- birdyrooster 6y agoThe issue is that they wouldn’t provide full service because it was in service of a gay wedding. You are splitting hairs and it makes no difference morally.
- tomp 6y agoWait, there's obviously a big difference. This is more akin to you phoning the baker, explaining that you're gay, asking them to write "happy gay wedding" on the cake, the baker agrees, ... the day comes and you call the baker and he's like "you want me to write GAY on your cake?!" and you're without cake. What salesforce did here is basically collective punishment.
- alisonkisk 6y agoThere's no collective punishment here. The RNC is a single legal person. All the individual members of the RNC are still welcome to use SalesForce themselves or in other organizations.