4 ms·

This is example of using “where does it stop” to justify lack of action. Should I complain that Uber doesn’t allow people who didn’t pass background check to w

This is example of using “where does it stop” to justify lack of action. Should I complain that Uber doesn’t allow people who didn’t pass background check to work for them, because possibly in the future they may extend it to people who disagree with a certain party? Should I complain that Amazon doesn’t sell rape videos, because later it can stop selling document documentary videos about politicians they don’t like? I agree that slow creep into utopia is an dangerous option, with “would somebody think about the children” approach. But using that to argument to justify lack of action in response to horrible events that undermine society is more dangerous.

ceilingcorner 6y ago
The difference is that Google or Facebook (or now AirBnb) are unilaterally deciding to make my choices for me. There is no message saying, “We discourage you to go to Washington,” there is only, “We decided for you that you shouldn’t be there.” Add that to growing monopolies and suddenly you can’t make any decisions for yourself, because there are no alternatives available. Not to mention the fact that there are a perhaps infinite number of ongoing issues that said companies don’t decide to involve themselves in which would have a much greater effect.
- justapassenger 6y ago
  Those aren’t choices for you. They chose who they want to do business with. And let’s not pretend that internet doesn’t exist outside of those companies. Facebook doesn’t allow for example pornography on their website, and Internet porn is doing great. And yeah, there are countless other issues for those companies. But perfect is an enemy of good. They’re allowed to take action, even if they won’t solve all the other problems at the same time. And on a list of importance to the companies, not enabling violent government overthrow attempts is in their best interest, even once you strip all the politics. It’s a country where those companies are based, make most of their revenue, and where they’re listed on a stock market.
  - ceilingcorner 6y ago
    Airbnb has every right to choose who they want to do business with. But I fear a world where there is only one option and I don’t have a choice whom I want to do business with, and where all my decisions have been made for me.
    - airstrike 6y ago
      Yeah, but that's not happening here.
armchairhacker 6y ago
We would need a third party, like the government or a nonprofit. When a company or companies get large enough that they monopolize a niche, when they apply arbitrary restrictions, said restrictions can be challenged in court. If Uber prevents people from working from them who disagree with a certain party, people can sue them and argue that it isn't a justified restriction. Preventing people from working who don't pass a background check is justified, because it protects the safety of customers (assuming the background check doesn't unfairly weed out certain groups). Whatever restrictions are required / allowed / banned is up to society as a whole. Probably we would generally err on the side of allowing things, because we like freedom, but ban anything which most agree is illegal, immoral, or dangerous.
- hobs 6y ago
  So, you are describing the actual government atm.
- AndrewUnmuted 6y ago
  > We would need a third party, like the government or a nonprofit. I thought this was a joke but then I read the rest. The government, and the many non-profits that benefit from their unique positions with government, are precisely the "enemy" of the people Airbnb are supposedly protecting us against. It would be ridiculous, self-serving, and entirely wasteful to do anything like this, especially led by the government.

ceilingcorner 6y ago

The difference is that Google or Facebook (or now AirBnb) are unilaterally deciding to make my choices for me. There is no message saying, “We discourage you to go to Washington,” there is only, “We decided for you that you shouldn’t be there.” Add that to growing monopolies and suddenly you can’t make any decisions for yourself, because there are no alternatives available. Not to mention the fact that there are a perhaps infinite number of ongoing issues that said companies don’t decide to involve themselves in which would have a much greater effect.

justapassenger 6y ago
Those aren’t choices for you. They chose who they want to do business with. And let’s not pretend that internet doesn’t exist outside of those companies. Facebook doesn’t allow for example pornography on their website, and Internet porn is doing great. And yeah, there are countless other issues for those companies. But perfect is an enemy of good. They’re allowed to take action, even if they won’t solve all the other problems at the same time. And on a list of importance to the companies, not enabling violent government overthrow attempts is in their best interest, even once you strip all the politics. It’s a country where those companies are based, make most of their revenue, and where they’re listed on a stock market.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  Airbnb has every right to choose who they want to do business with. But I fear a world where there is only one option and I don’t have a choice whom I want to do business with, and where all my decisions have been made for me.
  - airstrike 6y ago
    Yeah, but that's not happening here.

armchairhacker 6y ago

We would need a third party, like the government or a nonprofit. When a company or companies get large enough that they monopolize a niche, when they apply arbitrary restrictions, said restrictions can be challenged in court. If Uber prevents people from working from them who disagree with a certain party, people can sue them and argue that it isn't a justified restriction. Preventing people from working who don't pass a background check is justified, because it protects the safety of customers (assuming the background check doesn't unfairly weed out certain groups). Whatever restrictions are required / allowed / banned is up to society as a whole. Probably we would generally err on the side of allowing things, because we like freedom, but ban anything which most agree is illegal, immoral, or dangerous.

hobs 6y ago
So, you are describing the actual government atm.
AndrewUnmuted 6y ago
> We would need a third party, like the government or a nonprofit. I thought this was a joke but then I read the rest. The government, and the many non-profits that benefit from their unique positions with government, are precisely the "enemy" of the people Airbnb are supposedly protecting us against. It would be ridiculous, self-serving, and entirely wasteful to do anything like this, especially led by the government.