4 ms·

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

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
    You make a good point, I did say that! I do believe that you shouldn't be forced to do business with someone. And it doesn't matter if they're black, white, disabled, Nazi, Muslim, etc. But it does matter if the reason you don't want to do business with them is because of racism, sexism, agism, etc. If I all the sudden only want to do business with 100 people and I'm currently doing business with 200. I can randomly select 100 people and punt them. I don't need a reason. I can punt the least profitable. I can punt them because of alphabetical order. But it would be unfair and immoral of me to punt them because they are black or disabled. In the case of Facebook, they're just offering people a free space to post stuff. They're not obligated to continue to that forever. They don't need a good reason to punt you. But their are situations where they could have a bad reason. The question is, is this topic a bad reason to punt people? Given the low obligation that Facebook has to host anything -- I don't think so.
    - exporectomy 6y ago
      We might be getting a bit bogged down here, but I may as well carry on... Your idea of Facebook's obligation seems to be pretty much just based on what the law prohibits. That's not really an interesting thing to talk about because everyone agrees on such a simple fact. I weakly think Facebook is so powerful that when it bans people or breaks up groups, it's capable of doing more harm than most other internet services and therefore it could be more morally wrong. If your Facebook group is turned off, what other platform can you move every member to? How can you even contact them to organize the migration? If you're personally kicked off, how can you persuade all other members of your groups to migrate to another platform just so you can join them again? I attend a real-life class and it comes with a Facebook group for students to keep in touch and share materials. If I was banned from Facebook, I'd miss out on part of this unrelated class. Since everyone assumes you can use Facebook, if you can't, then you're disadvantaged. In contrast, nobody assumes you can post to HN, so being banned from here is qualitatively different, in my opinion.
      - wvenable 6y ago
        This site is not good for discussions this far down the tree! My idea of Facebook's obligation is not based on what the law prohibits but the law, hopefully, follows basic human moral tenets. If they overlap, it's not by accident. If your Facebook group turns off, there are hundreds of other platforms you can move to. If you failed to backup your contacts, how is that the fault of Facebook? If you can't convince people to migrate, why is that their problem? If your school relies on Facebook, they shouldn't do that -- complain to them, not Facebook. And not everyone assumes you can (or want) to use Facebook. It sounds like you want Facebook to take responsibility for things that are your own personal responsibility simply because, today, they're popular. It's not because they're the only choice but because, in some circles, they're the favored choice. Pretty significant difference. What if your group meets at McDonald's and you got banned? You forgot to get their contact info. They don't want to meet at Starbucks instead. And your school hosts a study session at McDonalds. What is McDonald's responsibility for your misfortune? Facebook is not the whole Internet. I have a Facebook account but generally I go months without even logging in. It's not essential. You're not forced to use it. If something you want to do requires it, it's your choice to do that or not. I've literally put my money where my mouth and decided not to upgrade to an Oculus Quest 2 because of the Facebook integration.

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
  You make a good point, I did say that! I do believe that you shouldn't be forced to do business with someone. And it doesn't matter if they're black, white, disabled, Nazi, Muslim, etc. But it does matter if the reason you don't want to do business with them is because of racism, sexism, agism, etc. If I all the sudden only want to do business with 100 people and I'm currently doing business with 200. I can randomly select 100 people and punt them. I don't need a reason. I can punt the least profitable. I can punt them because of alphabetical order. But it would be unfair and immoral of me to punt them because they are black or disabled. In the case of Facebook, they're just offering people a free space to post stuff. They're not obligated to continue to that forever. They don't need a good reason to punt you. But their are situations where they could have a bad reason. The question is, is this topic a bad reason to punt people? Given the low obligation that Facebook has to host anything -- I don't think so.
  - exporectomy 6y ago
    We might be getting a bit bogged down here, but I may as well carry on... Your idea of Facebook's obligation seems to be pretty much just based on what the law prohibits. That's not really an interesting thing to talk about because everyone agrees on such a simple fact. I weakly think Facebook is so powerful that when it bans people or breaks up groups, it's capable of doing more harm than most other internet services and therefore it could be more morally wrong. If your Facebook group is turned off, what other platform can you move every member to? How can you even contact them to organize the migration? If you're personally kicked off, how can you persuade all other members of your groups to migrate to another platform just so you can join them again? I attend a real-life class and it comes with a Facebook group for students to keep in touch and share materials. If I was banned from Facebook, I'd miss out on part of this unrelated class. Since everyone assumes you can use Facebook, if you can't, then you're disadvantaged. In contrast, nobody assumes you can post to HN, so being banned from here is qualitatively different, in my opinion.
    - wvenable 6y ago
      This site is not good for discussions this far down the tree! My idea of Facebook's obligation is not based on what the law prohibits but the law, hopefully, follows basic human moral tenets. If they overlap, it's not by accident. If your Facebook group turns off, there are hundreds of other platforms you can move to. If you failed to backup your contacts, how is that the fault of Facebook? If you can't convince people to migrate, why is that their problem? If your school relies on Facebook, they shouldn't do that -- complain to them, not Facebook. And not everyone assumes you can (or want) to use Facebook. It sounds like you want Facebook to take responsibility for things that are your own personal responsibility simply because, today, they're popular. It's not because they're the only choice but because, in some circles, they're the favored choice. Pretty significant difference. What if your group meets at McDonald's and you got banned? You forgot to get their contact info. They don't want to meet at Starbucks instead. And your school hosts a study session at McDonalds. What is McDonald's responsibility for your misfortune? Facebook is not the whole Internet. I have a Facebook account but generally I go months without even logging in. It's not essential. You're not forced to use it. If something you want to do requires it, it's your choice to do that or not. I've literally put my money where my mouth and decided not to upgrade to an Oculus Quest 2 because of the Facebook integration.