7 ms·

I don't agree with the premise. I don't think that property should give power to discriminate basing on political views, race, gender...

root_axis 6y ago
Political views are not a protected class. If I want to finance a platform that is explicitly partisan I should have the right to do so.
- throwaways885 6y ago
  Does that still hold when this platform has 3 billion users?
  - root_axis 6y ago
    Why does the number of users matter? There will always be a most popular platform, but this is just the natural result of individual choices, nobody is forcing anyone to use any particular platform and almost everyone uses multiple platforms.
    - throwaways885 6y ago
      Half the planet are using Facebook. Does that not warrant special rules around how they can exclude people? I'm also going to argue that individual choice is redundant here due to network effects.
      - root_axis 6y ago
        > Half the planet are using Facebook. Does that not warrant special rules around how they can exclude people? Why should it? Can you explain to me why the number of visitors to a website should determine how the website can operate? > I'm also going to argue that individual choice is redundant here due to network effects. What do you mean by redundant?
- cambalache 6y ago
  That's not a natural law, it is just something society decided (or even just interpreted) to be that way. If you dont see the risk on this, you will have to explain to me how political movements which promote a strong redistribution of wealth, more restriction on powerful entities, and pacifism are going to maintain their voice in a world every day more in the hands of big conglomerates. It is not only Facebook or Twitter, now Visa can fuck you over, or one of those airline alliances or Uber or your bank. People must fight back vigorously and if that means to support the right of some groups to say unsavory things so be it.
  - root_axis 6y ago
    > explain to me how political movements which promote a strong redistribution of wealth, more restriction on powerful entities, and pacifism are going to maintain their voice in a world every day more in the hands of big conglomerates. Those movements shouldn't expect cooperation from corporate platforms that are hostile to their cause. It's also never been more false to say that the people's voice is in the hands of big conglomerates, there are far more options available today than at any other time in the history of humanity.
    - wizzwizz4 6y ago
      Back when your standard method of long-distance communication was calls / SMS, it didn't tend to be automatedly censored.
      - root_axis 6y ago
        Calls and SMS still work just fine, better than ever, in fact
        wizzwizz4 6y ago
        Technically, yes. Socially, no.
    - cambalache 6y ago
- beerandt 6y ago
  Political views aren't a statutory protected class because they're constitutionally protected, in that they're an essential component to having a democratic government. (What does a democracy with only one permitted political viewpoint look like? Not a democracy.) If the equal protection clause can justify protected classes applying to private business, then inherently, political view must be protected. If we were talking about a diner, it wouldn't mean I could stand up and lecture other patrons on politics. It would mean the diner couldn't refuse service based on my politics. The difference with social media is: the entire purpose of it is to share and distribute the speech of users. Therefore, being denied service, or receiving different treatment, based on the content of that speech becomes discriminatory. This is before you even begin to consider "public square" aspects of the platforms. Similar to how Company Towns were not allowed to infringe on the speech of employees, even though the company owned the streets and town square. (Marsh v. Alabama)
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - zamadatix 6y ago
    "Political views aren't a statutory protected class because they're constitutionally protected, in that they're an essential component to having a democratic government." Are you saying the constitution actually says something about it or rather it's the only way you can see democracy working so therefore the constitution must imply?
    - beerandt 6y ago
      Short version: Without the implied freedom of political views, the protected classes gain little to nothing from the equal protection clause. The post war amendments were intended not just to ensure equal treatment under the law, but also allow equal political participation. What good is allowing a black man to participate in the political process if, for example, desegregation is a disallowed political view? Long version: I'm saying the combination of the following elements of the constitution: A guaranteed republican form of government clause, (democratically elected officials represent the political views of their citizens) The 1st amendment, (government may not restrict/compel/suppress speech, freedom of association) the 14th amendment (as interpreted), including: 1- equal protection clause, 2- federal constitutional restrictions applied to states, and 3- protections extended to privately held, public facing entities, (as is required to interpret the civil rights act as constitutional) ...Leaves no room to interpret political affiliation/views as being less protected than any protected class. Freedom of political view and affiliation is required as a cornerstone for the rest of the system to be built upon. Equal protection, as a means of allowing minorities or protected classes equal participation in the political process itself, as well as civil life, requires an underlying political process in which to participate. If that process is fundamentally restricted (via taboo political beliefs) then the protected classes aren't really protected, if they are allowed in the process, but their political views are not.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

root_axis 6y ago

Political views are not a protected class. If I want to finance a platform that is explicitly partisan I should have the right to do so.

throwaways885 6y ago
Does that still hold when this platform has 3 billion users?
- root_axis 6y ago
  Why does the number of users matter? There will always be a most popular platform, but this is just the natural result of individual choices, nobody is forcing anyone to use any particular platform and almost everyone uses multiple platforms.
  - throwaways885 6y ago
    Half the planet are using Facebook. Does that not warrant special rules around how they can exclude people? I'm also going to argue that individual choice is redundant here due to network effects.
    - root_axis 6y ago
      > Half the planet are using Facebook. Does that not warrant special rules around how they can exclude people? Why should it? Can you explain to me why the number of visitors to a website should determine how the website can operate? > I'm also going to argue that individual choice is redundant here due to network effects. What do you mean by redundant?
cambalache 6y ago
That's not a natural law, it is just something society decided (or even just interpreted) to be that way. If you dont see the risk on this, you will have to explain to me how political movements which promote a strong redistribution of wealth, more restriction on powerful entities, and pacifism are going to maintain their voice in a world every day more in the hands of big conglomerates. It is not only Facebook or Twitter, now Visa can fuck you over, or one of those airline alliances or Uber or your bank. People must fight back vigorously and if that means to support the right of some groups to say unsavory things so be it.
- root_axis 6y ago
  > explain to me how political movements which promote a strong redistribution of wealth, more restriction on powerful entities, and pacifism are going to maintain their voice in a world every day more in the hands of big conglomerates. Those movements shouldn't expect cooperation from corporate platforms that are hostile to their cause. It's also never been more false to say that the people's voice is in the hands of big conglomerates, there are far more options available today than at any other time in the history of humanity.
  - wizzwizz4 6y ago
    Back when your standard method of long-distance communication was calls / SMS, it didn't tend to be automatedly censored.
    - root_axis 6y ago
      Calls and SMS still work just fine, better than ever, in fact
      - wizzwizz4 6y ago
        Technically, yes. Socially, no.
  - cambalache 6y ago
beerandt 6y ago
Political views aren't a statutory protected class because they're constitutionally protected, in that they're an essential component to having a democratic government. (What does a democracy with only one permitted political viewpoint look like? Not a democracy.) If the equal protection clause can justify protected classes applying to private business, then inherently, political view must be protected. If we were talking about a diner, it wouldn't mean I could stand up and lecture other patrons on politics. It would mean the diner couldn't refuse service based on my politics. The difference with social media is: the entire purpose of it is to share and distribute the speech of users. Therefore, being denied service, or receiving different treatment, based on the content of that speech becomes discriminatory. This is before you even begin to consider "public square" aspects of the platforms. Similar to how Company Towns were not allowed to infringe on the speech of employees, even though the company owned the streets and town square. (Marsh v. Alabama)
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- zamadatix 6y ago
  "Political views aren't a statutory protected class because they're constitutionally protected, in that they're an essential component to having a democratic government." Are you saying the constitution actually says something about it or rather it's the only way you can see democracy working so therefore the constitution must imply?
  - beerandt 6y ago
    Short version: Without the implied freedom of political views, the protected classes gain little to nothing from the equal protection clause. The post war amendments were intended not just to ensure equal treatment under the law, but also allow equal political participation. What good is allowing a black man to participate in the political process if, for example, desegregation is a disallowed political view? Long version: I'm saying the combination of the following elements of the constitution: A guaranteed republican form of government clause, (democratically elected officials represent the political views of their citizens) The 1st amendment, (government may not restrict/compel/suppress speech, freedom of association) the 14th amendment (as interpreted), including: 1- equal protection clause, 2- federal constitutional restrictions applied to states, and 3- protections extended to privately held, public facing entities, (as is required to interpret the civil rights act as constitutional) ...Leaves no room to interpret political affiliation/views as being less protected than any protected class. Freedom of political view and affiliation is required as a cornerstone for the rest of the system to be built upon. Equal protection, as a means of allowing minorities or protected classes equal participation in the political process itself, as well as civil life, requires an underlying political process in which to participate. If that process is fundamentally restricted (via taboo political beliefs) then the protected classes aren't really protected, if they are allowed in the process, but their political views are not.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]