6 ms·

Would you want to be forced to do business with someone you didn't want to work with? Why try to force a tech company to do it then? Tech companies are private

Would you want to be forced to do business with someone you didn't want to work with? Why try to force a tech company to do it then? Tech companies are private enterprises just like a bar. And just like a bar can refuse service to anyone outside of a small set of protected classes. If you get kicked out of one bar, just go to another or start your own.

rapsey 6y ago
Because modern social networks are a defacto way people assemble. They are not just any company.
- Thorentis 6y ago
  The sooner people realise this the better. Social networks and Big Tech publishers have became the de facto communication standard, but still want the perks of being a private company. This is just another example of "privatise the gains, socialise the loses". And yet people are somehow blind to it because their least favorite politician is being targeted.
  - razius 6y ago
    This is how they remove the opposition, the salami tactics in full effect.
ceilingcorner 6y ago
This was essentially the same issue with the gay wedding cake. For the betterment of society, I think we might need an amendment that prevents discrimination based on political opinions. Otherwise, two parallel societies of echo chambers will form, and that is not a good thing.
- rapsey 6y ago
  A bakery is not a social network.
  - ceilingcorner 6y ago
    The example used was a bar. For many people, saying “Just go to a different bakery that will bake you a gay wedding cake” was an unacceptable solution. Many of those people, I might add, are now using the same argument themselves.
  - Nullabillity 6y ago
    True, bakeries are much more fungible than social networks.
- jjgreen 6y ago
  The cake case found that it was not discrimination [1]. This was supported by many LGB+ activists since it would have implied that gay bakeries would then be required to make Nazi cakes. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/10/uk-supreme-court-backs-bakery-that-refused-to-make-gay-wedding-cake https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/10/uk-supreme-c...
  - cheph 6y ago
    > “The bakers could not refuse to supply their goods to Mr Lee because he was a gay man or supported gay marriage, but that is quite different from obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed.” He would not have made that cake for anyone. Twitter on the other hand has no problem carrying much more egregious messages than Trumps, just not for Trump. So not really comparable.
    - eppp 6y ago
      I think we can all agree that shouting into an empty field in Nebraska is quite different than grabbing a bullhorn in front of a crowd and encouraging them to attack people. Twitter is no different. Or if you like the fire analogy, shouting fire while you are by yourself is quite a bit different than doing it in a movie theater.
      - cheph 6y ago
        > grabbing a bullhorn in front of a crowd and encouraging them to attack people. This is not why Twitter banned Trump: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio... So not sure what the relevance is. But I guess it is not less relevant than the example of the baker.
- chr1 6y ago
  In a way it's similar, because people with different viewpoints have to live together, and therefore any economic supply chain has to go through ideological boundaries multiple times. If people go full on economic sanctions war, trying to not sell or to not buy from people with wrong ideologies, everyone can become worse off. So not allowing economic warfare is a useful guideline for societies who want to resolve their fights in a civilized manner. Maybe it should be something like: if you are required to do additional custom work specifically for each customer, then you can choose which work to do. But if you are providing the same service to everyone, and you have to do additional work to filter out some types of customers, then you are doing something harmful to society.
  - ceilingcorner 6y ago
    Maybe it should be something like: if you are required to do additional custom work specifically for each customer, then you can choose which work to do. But if you are providing the same service to everyone, and you have to do additional work to filter out some types of customers, then you are doing something harmful to society. I came to a similar conclusion myself. I think that’s probably the way to go. You don’t want to force anyone to do something against their beliefs, but you also want to ensure that society and the market are unified.
chr1 6y ago
There is a difference between doing business, and letting someone to use an automated system.
DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago
YouTube is a monopoly and it'd be near-impossible to break that up, so the "bar" comparison really doesn't hold. Google can, singlehandedly decide to withdraw the right to publish video in any meaningful way to the internet from an individual. There's also the question of whether Trump is really just being banned for his political opinion, which is precisely one of those protected groups you mentioned (dunno if according to US law, but certainly according to the UDHR) So, here we have some idiots effective freedom of expression taken away for his political opinions. I'd say that's a pretty obvious human rights violation.
wrren 6y ago
That's not an accurate analogy. These platforms were happy to cater to Trump over the course of his presidency because he enriched them, this is not some moral stance they're taking now, it's the output of a cost-benefit analysis. Social media is now the public square, and these tech giants have incredible power to promote or suppress opinions. This isn't analogous to a bar admitting or rejecting clients, that's similar to likening the national debt to household debt; it masks a much more complex and consequential discussion.
- dannyw 6y ago
  I missed the part where private social media networks should be nationalised and the government should infringe on _their_ free speech rights. If I'm the CEO of Twitter and I want to ban everyone who I don't politically agree with, I should have the sole and absolute right to do so (subject to the board), the same way if I own a bookshop, I get to choose what books I stock.
- rzz3 6y ago
  > Social media is now the public square, and these tech giants have incredible power to promote or suppress opinions. Very well said. I’m sure the nuances of this will be missed on most, and if we dared say this at work, we’d probably be assumed to be Trump supporters and fired. I’m so worried about where this is going :(
vorhemus 6y ago
That's a pretty dangerous attitude in my opinion and if you spin it further, it can quickly lead to a divided society: A bar decides that it doesn't serve Biden supporters. Would you say: No problem, go to another? What if this other bar decides it doesn't serve men in general? Such rules, perceived as unfair, would quickly lead to resentment and hatred among the affected groups and a feeling of not being part of society. If people are excluded from services, there should be rational reasons for it and these reasons should be social consensus.
- eppp 6y ago
  What if a bar decides not to serve nazis or white supremacists?
4bpp 6y ago
This reasoning strikes me as very similar to what is called out as perceiving oneself to be a "temporarily embarrassed billionaire" in the context of poor people voting against taxes and redistribution. I for my part do not feel the sort of empathy for Google that this argument seems to be predicated on me feeling, and I can't imagine this changing even if I were to operate my own bar. My bar would not be a temporarily embarrassed Google, so to speak. > start your own ...and start your own DDoS protection, DNS hierarchy, payment processor etc. as well? In the context of bars, I have not heard of beer companies, kitchen equipment suppliers, map makers or PoS terminal providers demand that the bar ban a particular customer on threat of refusing to service them, either, so that proposal seems rather more realistic than the one we are actually talking about here.
- _trampeltier 6y ago
  That's when the digital world becomes infrastucture and now finally people and politics start to see what infrastructure in just private hands mean. They have no rights at all. Even the president from US can easely banned just as we saw.
  - eppp 6y ago
    Twitter isnt infrastructure. The internet is. This isnt a valid comparison.
    - _trampeltier 6y ago
      Yes and no. Social media is for politics maybe a bit like infrastructure. But also if nobody wanna host your server (like Parler/AWS) then you just loose everything. It is now the first time it hit a president from a large country. But its not really different from no bank wanna do business with for ex. the porn industry.
- 52-6F-62 6y ago
  > I have not heard of beer companies, kitchen equipment suppliers, map makers or PoS terminal providers demand that the bar ban a particular customer on threat of refusing to service them, either, so that proposal seems rather more realistic than the one we are actually talking about here. It absolutely happens in beer companies, kitchen equipment suppliers, etc. Ex: I doubt you would find a high end distiller advertising that they're sold, especially without a distribution deal, in Mick's Souse Hole, North Etobicoke. There is all kinds of heavily established strata and bartering lines in all manner of business. That's nothing new at all. If a given business or client establishes itself as an unworthy partner, no deals are made or existing deals are broken—at least to the limits of the moral stand on either side. In all industries. It just happens, some businesses, or industries in general, care less to establish moral boundaries than others. But in any industry: "bad for business" is "bad for business"; and "bad for business" is avoided. I suppose my point beyond talking about beer companies is: this is nothing unique to Twitter et al. Twitter [et al] is just highly visible. I don't think Jim from Etobicoke, Canada, one eye closed and slobbering, has a case for arguing he should be represented on the Pernod label just because he wants to be. I doubt most people do. But most people don't care what Jim or Pernod do.
fuoqi 6y ago
So you are fine with a restaurant or a convenience store refusing to do business with people of color or LGBT supporters? What if it was the only viable place in town? What about cable companies refusing to provide internet connection to them? While I do not support Trump, I think such segregation (based on race, gender, political views, etc.) is a very dangerous phenomena in the mid/long-term.
- tehbeard 6y ago
  > ...a small set of protected classes... You really need to read the comments before replying.. Something needs to be done, certainly. But status quo is not the answer. Out of all of this, I do have to give Twitter some credit for having/working on a policy to deal with world leaders usage of the platform, even if it's been rough both the last few years and last week or so.
  - fuoqi 6y ago
    "Small and protected class" has nothing to do with the message of the comment to which I have replied. Read it again carefully, "like a bar" means that it's nothing more than an example. In the comment a clear opinion has been voiced: private enterprises have right to refuse to do business with anyone whom they don't like.
- ntgftg 6y ago
  Allowing businesses to deny service to gay people is a Republican party position. Donald Trump is a Republican. So it goes.
- upbeat_general 6y ago
  A) I think internet providers should be regulated as utilities which would prevent them from arbitrarily refusing service B) It is illegal to refuse service on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, or disability. It is legal to refuse service on the basis of ‘I don’t like your opinion’. If I start a bar, I can’t ban people because they’re of a race, from a country, etc. but if there’s a group supporting the overthrow of our government, I absolutely can (and probably would).
mysterydip 6y ago
If google decides to not list your company in their search, where will you be found by people you are trying to reach? If no datacenter will host your server because they don't want to stop appearing in search, where will you host?
eppp 6y ago
That isn't true. A private electric company must serve everyone regardless of their views, with the usual stipulations on paying their bills, etc.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

rapsey 6y ago

Because modern social networks are a defacto way people assemble. They are not just any company.

Thorentis 6y ago
The sooner people realise this the better. Social networks and Big Tech publishers have became the de facto communication standard, but still want the perks of being a private company. This is just another example of "privatise the gains, socialise the loses". And yet people are somehow blind to it because their least favorite politician is being targeted.
- razius 6y ago
  This is how they remove the opposition, the salami tactics in full effect.

ceilingcorner 6y ago

This was essentially the same issue with the gay wedding cake. For the betterment of society, I think we might need an amendment that prevents discrimination based on political opinions. Otherwise, two parallel societies of echo chambers will form, and that is not a good thing.

rapsey 6y ago
A bakery is not a social network.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  The example used was a bar. For many people, saying “Just go to a different bakery that will bake you a gay wedding cake” was an unacceptable solution. Many of those people, I might add, are now using the same argument themselves.
- Nullabillity 6y ago
  True, bakeries are much more fungible than social networks.
jjgreen 6y ago
The cake case found that it was not discrimination [1]. This was supported by many LGB+ activists since it would have implied that gay bakeries would then be required to make Nazi cakes. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/10/uk-supreme-court-backs-bakery-that-refused-to-make-gay-wedding-cake https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/10/uk-supreme-c...
- cheph 6y ago
  > “The bakers could not refuse to supply their goods to Mr Lee because he was a gay man or supported gay marriage, but that is quite different from obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed.” He would not have made that cake for anyone. Twitter on the other hand has no problem carrying much more egregious messages than Trumps, just not for Trump. So not really comparable.
  - eppp 6y ago
    I think we can all agree that shouting into an empty field in Nebraska is quite different than grabbing a bullhorn in front of a crowd and encouraging them to attack people. Twitter is no different. Or if you like the fire analogy, shouting fire while you are by yourself is quite a bit different than doing it in a movie theater.
    - cheph 6y ago
      > grabbing a bullhorn in front of a crowd and encouraging them to attack people. This is not why Twitter banned Trump: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspension.html https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio... So not sure what the relevance is. But I guess it is not less relevant than the example of the baker.
chr1 6y ago
In a way it's similar, because people with different viewpoints have to live together, and therefore any economic supply chain has to go through ideological boundaries multiple times. If people go full on economic sanctions war, trying to not sell or to not buy from people with wrong ideologies, everyone can become worse off. So not allowing economic warfare is a useful guideline for societies who want to resolve their fights in a civilized manner. Maybe it should be something like: if you are required to do additional custom work specifically for each customer, then you can choose which work to do. But if you are providing the same service to everyone, and you have to do additional work to filter out some types of customers, then you are doing something harmful to society.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  Maybe it should be something like: if you are required to do additional custom work specifically for each customer, then you can choose which work to do. But if you are providing the same service to everyone, and you have to do additional work to filter out some types of customers, then you are doing something harmful to society. I came to a similar conclusion myself. I think that’s probably the way to go. You don’t want to force anyone to do something against their beliefs, but you also want to ensure that society and the market are unified.

chr1 6y ago

There is a difference between doing business, and letting someone to use an automated system.

DarkWiiPlayer 6y ago

YouTube is a monopoly and it'd be near-impossible to break that up, so the "bar" comparison really doesn't hold. Google can, singlehandedly decide to withdraw the right to publish video in any meaningful way to the internet from an individual. There's also the question of whether Trump is really just being banned for his political opinion, which is precisely one of those protected groups you mentioned (dunno if according to US law, but certainly according to the UDHR) So, here we have some idiots effective freedom of expression taken away for his political opinions. I'd say that's a pretty obvious human rights violation.

wrren 6y ago

That's not an accurate analogy. These platforms were happy to cater to Trump over the course of his presidency because he enriched them, this is not some moral stance they're taking now, it's the output of a cost-benefit analysis. Social media is now the public square, and these tech giants have incredible power to promote or suppress opinions. This isn't analogous to a bar admitting or rejecting clients, that's similar to likening the national debt to household debt; it masks a much more complex and consequential discussion.

dannyw 6y ago
I missed the part where private social media networks should be nationalised and the government should infringe on _their_ free speech rights. If I'm the CEO of Twitter and I want to ban everyone who I don't politically agree with, I should have the sole and absolute right to do so (subject to the board), the same way if I own a bookshop, I get to choose what books I stock.
rzz3 6y ago
> Social media is now the public square, and these tech giants have incredible power to promote or suppress opinions. Very well said. I’m sure the nuances of this will be missed on most, and if we dared say this at work, we’d probably be assumed to be Trump supporters and fired. I’m so worried about where this is going :(

vorhemus 6y ago

That's a pretty dangerous attitude in my opinion and if you spin it further, it can quickly lead to a divided society: A bar decides that it doesn't serve Biden supporters. Would you say: No problem, go to another? What if this other bar decides it doesn't serve men in general? Such rules, perceived as unfair, would quickly lead to resentment and hatred among the affected groups and a feeling of not being part of society. If people are excluded from services, there should be rational reasons for it and these reasons should be social consensus.

eppp 6y ago
What if a bar decides not to serve nazis or white supremacists?

4bpp 6y ago

This reasoning strikes me as very similar to what is called out as perceiving oneself to be a "temporarily embarrassed billionaire" in the context of poor people voting against taxes and redistribution. I for my part do not feel the sort of empathy for Google that this argument seems to be predicated on me feeling, and I can't imagine this changing even if I were to operate my own bar. My bar would not be a temporarily embarrassed Google, so to speak. > start your own ...and start your own DDoS protection, DNS hierarchy, payment processor etc. as well? In the context of bars, I have not heard of beer companies, kitchen equipment suppliers, map makers or PoS terminal providers demand that the bar ban a particular customer on threat of refusing to service them, either, so that proposal seems rather more realistic than the one we are actually talking about here.

_trampeltier 6y ago
That's when the digital world becomes infrastucture and now finally people and politics start to see what infrastructure in just private hands mean. They have no rights at all. Even the president from US can easely banned just as we saw.
- eppp 6y ago
  Twitter isnt infrastructure. The internet is. This isnt a valid comparison.
  - _trampeltier 6y ago
    Yes and no. Social media is for politics maybe a bit like infrastructure. But also if nobody wanna host your server (like Parler/AWS) then you just loose everything. It is now the first time it hit a president from a large country. But its not really different from no bank wanna do business with for ex. the porn industry.
52-6F-62 6y ago
> I have not heard of beer companies, kitchen equipment suppliers, map makers or PoS terminal providers demand that the bar ban a particular customer on threat of refusing to service them, either, so that proposal seems rather more realistic than the one we are actually talking about here. It absolutely happens in beer companies, kitchen equipment suppliers, etc. Ex: I doubt you would find a high end distiller advertising that they're sold, especially without a distribution deal, in Mick's Souse Hole, North Etobicoke. There is all kinds of heavily established strata and bartering lines in all manner of business. That's nothing new at all. If a given business or client establishes itself as an unworthy partner, no deals are made or existing deals are broken—at least to the limits of the moral stand on either side. In all industries. It just happens, some businesses, or industries in general, care less to establish moral boundaries than others. But in any industry: "bad for business" is "bad for business"; and "bad for business" is avoided. I suppose my point beyond talking about beer companies is: this is nothing unique to Twitter et al. Twitter [et al] is just highly visible. I don't think Jim from Etobicoke, Canada, one eye closed and slobbering, has a case for arguing he should be represented on the Pernod label just because he wants to be. I doubt most people do. But most people don't care what Jim or Pernod do.

fuoqi 6y ago

So you are fine with a restaurant or a convenience store refusing to do business with people of color or LGBT supporters? What if it was the only viable place in town? What about cable companies refusing to provide internet connection to them? While I do not support Trump, I think such segregation (based on race, gender, political views, etc.) is a very dangerous phenomena in the mid/long-term.

tehbeard 6y ago
> ...a small set of protected classes... You really need to read the comments before replying.. Something needs to be done, certainly. But status quo is not the answer. Out of all of this, I do have to give Twitter some credit for having/working on a policy to deal with world leaders usage of the platform, even if it's been rough both the last few years and last week or so.
- fuoqi 6y ago
  "Small and protected class" has nothing to do with the message of the comment to which I have replied. Read it again carefully, "like a bar" means that it's nothing more than an example. In the comment a clear opinion has been voiced: private enterprises have right to refuse to do business with anyone whom they don't like.
ntgftg 6y ago
Allowing businesses to deny service to gay people is a Republican party position. Donald Trump is a Republican. So it goes.
upbeat_general 6y ago
A) I think internet providers should be regulated as utilities which would prevent them from arbitrarily refusing service B) It is illegal to refuse service on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, or disability. It is legal to refuse service on the basis of ‘I don’t like your opinion’. If I start a bar, I can’t ban people because they’re of a race, from a country, etc. but if there’s a group supporting the overthrow of our government, I absolutely can (and probably would).

mysterydip 6y ago

If google decides to not list your company in their search, where will you be found by people you are trying to reach? If no datacenter will host your server because they don't want to stop appearing in search, where will you host?

eppp 6y ago

That isn't true. A private electric company must serve everyone regardless of their views, with the usual stipulations on paying their bills, etc.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]