4 ms·

Do you believe Facebook has no legal or moral requirement to host content from people regardless of their race? I don't quite know the law in America, but I'm m

Do you believe Facebook has no legal or moral requirement to host content from people regardless of their race? I don't quite know the law in America, but I'm more interested in the moral question. Is racial discrimination by a company like Facebook morally acceptable to you regardless of whether it's legal or not?

wvenable 6y ago
Facebook is no different than any other business in this case. If you walk into a restaurant and you are rude to the waiters or you cause a commotion that restaurant can refuse your service and kick you out. Or heck, maybe they just want to close early. Legal and moral. If you are Black and walk into a restaurant and you are refused service that is both illegal (in the US) and immoral.
- exporectomy 6y ago
  I see. What if you walk in and are somebody named wvenable so they kick you out? As you've said, you believe they have that right. What if you walk in and are ginger so they kick you out? Have poor eyesight? Are dressed in the costume of a religion they don't like? Are dressed in the costume of a political ideology they don't like? I'm trying to work out a set of fundamental principals are would distinguish good discrimination from bad. I often see people, such as yourself, adamantly insisting that some kinds are good or some are bad but the distinction seems arbitrary.
  - wvenable 6y ago
    US law has defined a few protected classes (race, color, religion, sex, age, and disability). Is that a perfect list? Probably not. Is it a reasonable legal and moral framework, I think so. Based on that protected class list, you can probably work out my answers to your questions easily. So it's not that arbitrary. I could reverse this and ask your the same type of questions. As a business owner, am I not allowed to have any control over who and what business that I do? If I allow posts on my website, I must allow Nazi hate posts? If I allow images, I must allow all images except those that are illegal? If you're being rude to my workers, I can't turn you away, I just have to take it? If you say yes, I'd like how that is fair to me. If you say no, then that is also arbitrary, right?
    - exporectomy 6y ago
      I guess your answers are: 1. Have the right 2. Have the right 3. Don't have the right 4. Don't have the right 5. Have the right But what's so different between 2 and 3 or between 4 and 5? I could understand it if you see them as grey areas but it sounds like you're adamant they have no moral requirement to serve ginger people but that it's immoral to refuse short-sighted people. And why are religious and political ideologies distinct? I don't have much of an answer myself, but I don't think religion should be protected. People are free to change their religion or lie about it to avoid discrimination if they want. Do you agree that excluding Muslims is wrong but excluding (nonviolent) Islamists is a right? How can you even tell the difference? I wondered if you opinion was based on some philosophy. It seems it's just a copy of what you've absorbed from your culture and suffers from all the same problems.
      - wvenable 6y ago
        > it sounds like you're adamant they have no moral requirement to serve ginger people I'm not sure how you get adamant from my comment. I went out of my way to claim that this description was not perfect. One could argue that ginger falls under "race". I personally don't believe you should deny someone service because of there genetic appearance. I'd go all in on appearance but then you might might have to serve naked people! Everything is grey. Religion is a grey area too; in some cases it's more equivalent to political believes and in other cases it's more like race. People also mistake appearance and religion all the time. > Do you agree that excluding Muslims is wrong but excluding (nonviolent) Islamists is a right? No I don't. People like to claim their persecuted because of who they are rather than what they do and how that impacts others. Lets be clear, we are talking about Facebook blocking content (actively posted material) that they deem unacceptable. You made this about the who rather than the what and I don't think that applies in this case at all. So we've really gone down this rabbit hole for nothing.
        exporectomy 6y ago
        This is the quote that makes it look like you have a strong opinion on at least an aspect of this topic, including discriminating against people for who they are not what they post. So I thought you might have some unique set of beliefs. Turns out you don't, and see it as a rabbit hole, which is OK and we can stop here. > I totally believe that Facebook doesn't have any legal or moral requirement to host anything they don't want to. They could literally just punt me tomorrow because they don't like my name and that's their right.

wvenable 6y ago

Facebook is no different than any other business in this case. If you walk into a restaurant and you are rude to the waiters or you cause a commotion that restaurant can refuse your service and kick you out. Or heck, maybe they just want to close early. Legal and moral. If you are Black and walk into a restaurant and you are refused service that is both illegal (in the US) and immoral.

exporectomy 6y ago
I see. What if you walk in and are somebody named wvenable so they kick you out? As you've said, you believe they have that right. What if you walk in and are ginger so they kick you out? Have poor eyesight? Are dressed in the costume of a religion they don't like? Are dressed in the costume of a political ideology they don't like? I'm trying to work out a set of fundamental principals are would distinguish good discrimination from bad. I often see people, such as yourself, adamantly insisting that some kinds are good or some are bad but the distinction seems arbitrary.
- wvenable 6y ago
  US law has defined a few protected classes (race, color, religion, sex, age, and disability). Is that a perfect list? Probably not. Is it a reasonable legal and moral framework, I think so. Based on that protected class list, you can probably work out my answers to your questions easily. So it's not that arbitrary. I could reverse this and ask your the same type of questions. As a business owner, am I not allowed to have any control over who and what business that I do? If I allow posts on my website, I must allow Nazi hate posts? If I allow images, I must allow all images except those that are illegal? If you're being rude to my workers, I can't turn you away, I just have to take it? If you say yes, I'd like how that is fair to me. If you say no, then that is also arbitrary, right?
  - exporectomy 6y ago
    I guess your answers are: 1. Have the right 2. Have the right 3. Don't have the right 4. Don't have the right 5. Have the right But what's so different between 2 and 3 or between 4 and 5? I could understand it if you see them as grey areas but it sounds like you're adamant they have no moral requirement to serve ginger people but that it's immoral to refuse short-sighted people. And why are religious and political ideologies distinct? I don't have much of an answer myself, but I don't think religion should be protected. People are free to change their religion or lie about it to avoid discrimination if they want. Do you agree that excluding Muslims is wrong but excluding (nonviolent) Islamists is a right? How can you even tell the difference? I wondered if you opinion was based on some philosophy. It seems it's just a copy of what you've absorbed from your culture and suffers from all the same problems.
    - wvenable 6y ago
      > it sounds like you're adamant they have no moral requirement to serve ginger people I'm not sure how you get adamant from my comment. I went out of my way to claim that this description was not perfect. One could argue that ginger falls under "race". I personally don't believe you should deny someone service because of there genetic appearance. I'd go all in on appearance but then you might might have to serve naked people! Everything is grey. Religion is a grey area too; in some cases it's more equivalent to political believes and in other cases it's more like race. People also mistake appearance and religion all the time. > Do you agree that excluding Muslims is wrong but excluding (nonviolent) Islamists is a right? No I don't. People like to claim their persecuted because of who they are rather than what they do and how that impacts others. Lets be clear, we are talking about Facebook blocking content (actively posted material) that they deem unacceptable. You made this about the who rather than the what and I don't think that applies in this case at all. So we've really gone down this rabbit hole for nothing.
      - exporectomy 6y ago
        This is the quote that makes it look like you have a strong opinion on at least an aspect of this topic, including discriminating against people for who they are not what they post. So I thought you might have some unique set of beliefs. Turns out you don't, and see it as a rabbit hole, which is OK and we can stop here. > I totally believe that Facebook doesn't have any legal or moral requirement to host anything they don't want to. They could literally just punt me tomorrow because they don't like my name and that's their right.