5 ms·

This is disingenuous. Already credit card companies have begun to de-platform people. Once Visa and AmEx refuse to do business with you, you are on increasingly

This is disingenuous. Already credit card companies have begun to de-platform people. Once Visa and AmEx refuse to do business with you, you are on increasingly thin ice. If both Google and Apple refuse to host your app in their App Stores, what exactly is your recourse? Nowadays, the public square, the thing that the constitution is supposed to protect, which is the difference between feudalism and democracy, is de-facto (though not de-jure), owned by monopolistic corporations. They are only accountable to their shareholders, and they have nearly complete power over their platforms. The vast majority of public discourse, news and financial transactions take place on these feudal fiefdoms. This is an oversight in the current legal framework, and will have to be corrected eventually.

mattbee 6y ago
> This is disingenuous. Already credit card companies have begun to de-platform people. Once Visa and AmEx refuse to do business with you, you are on increasingly thin ice. If both Google and Apple refuse to host your app in their App Stores, what exactly is your recourse? Host on your own infrastructure. Present a mobile-responsive web site. Take Bitcoin. (we're talking, politely, about free speech extremists - so none of this seems wildly inappropriate, right?)
- whateveracct 6y ago
  > Host on your own infrastructure. Present a mobile-responsive web site. Take Bitcoin. This is all fair. If your goal is to exist on the fringe of the acceptable and legal, you're going to have to DIY.
ssalazar 6y ago
If banks and a score of major tech companies independently decide not to do business with someone, maybe that someone is the problem.
- whatthesmack 6y ago
  I don't doubt that it could be used as a hint among other points, but doesn't that approach scream "tyranny of the mob"? How often in the past has a minority view been objectively right and a majority view been wrong? For example, Galileo was accused of heresy due to his belief that the Earth revolved around the sun. The "maybe that someone is the problem" view would say Galileo was the problem.
  - robertlagrant 6y ago
    History is full of people whose thinking stopped at "no smoke without fire". Those people are still here today.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    The free market argument is that it isn't tyranny of the mob. It's tyranny of the market. The companies are responding to market forces, which implies that so many people are concerned that it's actually a democratic push of people voting with their wallets.
- MrBuddyCasino 6y ago
  There was a time when many businesses refused service to blacks and jews. By our logic, that would have been right and proper. As a bonus, I'll just add this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
  - ssalazar 6y ago
    Not my logic. Refusing service to someone based on their sexual orientation, religion, or color of their skin is a very different moral proposition than refusing service based on facilitating the subversion of the democratically elected government that sustains said business.
    - war1025 6y ago
      Then add political affiliation as a protected class and prosecute people who break actual laws. My personal opinion is that this discussion about tech, politics, censorship, etc. is something that needs to happen, and maybe all parties were completely within their rights to act how they did. There are a lot of people who don't see that as self-evident, and what they are hearing is "if you are pro-Trump, you deserve to be a social pariah." That is a real quick path to radicalization. Society is based on a set of mutually agreed upon rules. If you convince enough people through your actions that the rules are "Heads I win, Tails you lose", then they'll decide not to play by those rules anymore. And then all hell breaks loose.
      - anaerobicover 6y ago
        > Society is based on a set of mutually agreed upon rules. Agreed, and it follows from that that "political affiliation" protection cannot include "wants to destroy the government" -- no matter from what quadrant that sentiment flows (anarchist, socialist, fascist, whatever). Agreeing to democracy -- and probably republicanism -- (note, both lowercase) is a bright line across which you've really decided to step outside of our mutual rules.
      - ssalazar 6y ago
- cheeseomlit 6y ago
  In 1984 everyone hated Goldstein's guts, but was he really the problem?
  - rodgerd 6y ago
    Read another book, for god's sake. Try Homage to Catalonia. You'll find the author likes shooting fascists, not platforming them.
protonimitate 6y ago
> Nowadays, the public square, the thing that the constitution is supposed to protect, which is the difference between feudalism and democracy, is de-facto (though not de-jure), owned by monopolistic corporations. That's quite the exaggeration. You can quite literally still gather in a physical public square. Just because it's more convenient to do so online doesn't mean it's a granted right. > The vast majority of public discourse, news and financial transactions take place on these feudal fiefdoms. And? If a bank decides they don't want you as a customer, you can still perform cash transactions. You aren't entitled to a bank account just because the majority of people do banking.
- whoopdedo 6y ago
  Also, what Parler was doing was not so much "gathering in the public square" as they were renting a storefront in a privately owned mall. The mall owners are well within their rights to evict the tenant.
- free_rms 6y ago
  We've built a society without physical public squares, for the most part, though, and substituted them with the virtual.
- speeder 6y ago
  > You can quite literally still gather in a physical public square. You can? Last I checked I can't, if I do that I get arrested for breaking social distancing... > you can still perform cash transactions. You mean, like in Japan and Sweden, that decided to attempt to go cashless by creating more and more rules on cash so that only debit (or credit) cards are practical?
  - GcVmvNhBsU 6y ago
    That’s quite a pedantic interpretation of gathering in a public square at a particular moment in time where doing so is detrimental to the health and economy of a community. In the event that you’re not disingenuously asking that question, as with all things, “it depends”, on specific local ordinance, how many people, the ability to maintain six feet distance, etc.
Avamander 6y ago
> Already credit card companies have begun to de-platform people. For a while now. Sex workers, sex shops have complained about it for years. Nobody cared. I find it ironic that the same group of people advocating against consumer and worker protections now seem to demand them.
- rodgerd 6y ago
  It's tempting to think that it's concern trolling by fascists, really. No interest in whether Google wants to get rid of a high-profile AI ethicist, because hey, it's a private company. No interest in Facebook censoring breastfeeding groups because OMG NIPPLE. No interest in, as you say, making it impossible for legal sex work to operate. No complaints that Apple forbid R18 material in the app store years ago because Steve Jobs didn't like it. Now, suddenly, it's a great big issue because a bunch of neo-Nazis got run out of town? Not a great look, eh.

mattbee 6y ago

> This is disingenuous. Already credit card companies have begun to de-platform people. Once Visa and AmEx refuse to do business with you, you are on increasingly thin ice. If both Google and Apple refuse to host your app in their App Stores, what exactly is your recourse? Host on your own infrastructure. Present a mobile-responsive web site. Take Bitcoin. (we're talking, politely, about free speech extremists - so none of this seems wildly inappropriate, right?)

whateveracct 6y ago
> Host on your own infrastructure. Present a mobile-responsive web site. Take Bitcoin. This is all fair. If your goal is to exist on the fringe of the acceptable and legal, you're going to have to DIY.

ssalazar 6y ago

If banks and a score of major tech companies independently decide not to do business with someone, maybe that someone is the problem.

whatthesmack 6y ago
I don't doubt that it could be used as a hint among other points, but doesn't that approach scream "tyranny of the mob"? How often in the past has a minority view been objectively right and a majority view been wrong? For example, Galileo was accused of heresy due to his belief that the Earth revolved around the sun. The "maybe that someone is the problem" view would say Galileo was the problem.
- robertlagrant 6y ago
  History is full of people whose thinking stopped at "no smoke without fire". Those people are still here today.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  The free market argument is that it isn't tyranny of the mob. It's tyranny of the market. The companies are responding to market forces, which implies that so many people are concerned that it's actually a democratic push of people voting with their wallets.
MrBuddyCasino 6y ago
There was a time when many businesses refused service to blacks and jews. By our logic, that would have been right and proper. As a bonus, I'll just add this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...
- ssalazar 6y ago
  Not my logic. Refusing service to someone based on their sexual orientation, religion, or color of their skin is a very different moral proposition than refusing service based on facilitating the subversion of the democratically elected government that sustains said business.
  - war1025 6y ago
    Then add political affiliation as a protected class and prosecute people who break actual laws. My personal opinion is that this discussion about tech, politics, censorship, etc. is something that needs to happen, and maybe all parties were completely within their rights to act how they did. There are a lot of people who don't see that as self-evident, and what they are hearing is "if you are pro-Trump, you deserve to be a social pariah." That is a real quick path to radicalization. Society is based on a set of mutually agreed upon rules. If you convince enough people through your actions that the rules are "Heads I win, Tails you lose", then they'll decide not to play by those rules anymore. And then all hell breaks loose.
    - anaerobicover 6y ago
      > Society is based on a set of mutually agreed upon rules. Agreed, and it follows from that that "political affiliation" protection cannot include "wants to destroy the government" -- no matter from what quadrant that sentiment flows (anarchist, socialist, fascist, whatever). Agreeing to democracy -- and probably republicanism -- (note, both lowercase) is a bright line across which you've really decided to step outside of our mutual rules.
    - ssalazar 6y ago
cheeseomlit 6y ago
In 1984 everyone hated Goldstein's guts, but was he really the problem?
- rodgerd 6y ago
  Read another book, for god's sake. Try Homage to Catalonia. You'll find the author likes shooting fascists, not platforming them.

protonimitate 6y ago

> Nowadays, the public square, the thing that the constitution is supposed to protect, which is the difference between feudalism and democracy, is de-facto (though not de-jure), owned by monopolistic corporations. That's quite the exaggeration. You can quite literally still gather in a physical public square. Just because it's more convenient to do so online doesn't mean it's a granted right. > The vast majority of public discourse, news and financial transactions take place on these feudal fiefdoms. And? If a bank decides they don't want you as a customer, you can still perform cash transactions. You aren't entitled to a bank account just because the majority of people do banking.

whoopdedo 6y ago
Also, what Parler was doing was not so much "gathering in the public square" as they were renting a storefront in a privately owned mall. The mall owners are well within their rights to evict the tenant.
free_rms 6y ago
We've built a society without physical public squares, for the most part, though, and substituted them with the virtual.
speeder 6y ago
> You can quite literally still gather in a physical public square. You can? Last I checked I can't, if I do that I get arrested for breaking social distancing... > you can still perform cash transactions. You mean, like in Japan and Sweden, that decided to attempt to go cashless by creating more and more rules on cash so that only debit (or credit) cards are practical?
- GcVmvNhBsU 6y ago
  That’s quite a pedantic interpretation of gathering in a public square at a particular moment in time where doing so is detrimental to the health and economy of a community. In the event that you’re not disingenuously asking that question, as with all things, “it depends”, on specific local ordinance, how many people, the ability to maintain six feet distance, etc.

Avamander 6y ago

> Already credit card companies have begun to de-platform people. For a while now. Sex workers, sex shops have complained about it for years. Nobody cared. I find it ironic that the same group of people advocating against consumer and worker protections now seem to demand them.

rodgerd 6y ago
It's tempting to think that it's concern trolling by fascists, really. No interest in whether Google wants to get rid of a high-profile AI ethicist, because hey, it's a private company. No interest in Facebook censoring breastfeeding groups because OMG NIPPLE. No interest in, as you say, making it impossible for legal sex work to operate. No complaints that Apple forbid R18 material in the app store years ago because Steve Jobs didn't like it. Now, suddenly, it's a great big issue because a bunch of neo-Nazis got run out of town? Not a great look, eh.