6 ms·

If you believe in liberty as a principle don't you have to support ebay's decision to decide whether or not they want to sell a particular book? I don't unders

by jmull 6y ago

If you believe in liberty as a principle don't you have to support ebay's decision to decide whether or not they want to sell a particular book? I don't understand their decision here, but so what? It's their store, why should you or I tell or anyone else them what to sell? Woke crazies try to impose their ideology on others by complaining and shaming on the Internet. I think you're doing the same thing here. The difference are the specifics of the ideology. If you support liberty only for things you agree with, you don't support liberty. I get worried when people promote the idea that compelling others speech is pro free speech. It's the modern newspeak.

lodi 6y ago
> If you believe in liberty as a principle don't you have to support ebay's decision to decide whether or not they want to sell a particular book? Not exactly, no. Even the most laissez faire among us would probably agree that you need to set and enforce some ground rules to prevent monopolies, externalities, information assymetries, and other market failures. Also ebay isn't a bookseller choosing what books to stock; it's just an exchange for buyers and sellers to directly transact with each other.
- jmull 6y ago
  > Even the most laissez faire among us would probably agree that you need to set and enforce some ground rules to prevent monopolies, externalities, information assymetries, and other market failures. Sure, of course there are ground rules. Things that are illegal are not permitted. But what are you suggesting the rule would be that would apply in this case? And by rule, we're taking about a law, right? Otherwise, it wouldn't be binding and we're right back to where eBay is within its rights to decide not sell (or list, if you prefer) these books. To be clear, I think it's fine to complain about ebay's stance here. I don't agree with it. But you can't do it in the name of free speech or liberty generally as the previous poster is attempting to do.
Wolfenstein98k 6y ago
You can support the right to be a Nazi while strongly criticising it. People can say that they really think eBay is doing the wrong thing, and maybe even boycott them, without necessarily saying they should be forced by law to stock children's books that became out of fashion thirty seconds ago.
- nindalf 6y ago
  > You can support the right to be a Nazi while strongly criticising it. You have the luxury of never having seen your country and culture being taken over by Nazis. Never living with the regret of being tolerant of Nazis. I have. It sucks. It's so easy to talk in platitudes like this when you know your own life won't be affected in any way. How about supporting the right of QAnon adherents to spread their poisonous propaganda? What about when you see it's support growing rapidly? Would you still support it if it looked like you might be living in a society where the majority are QAnoners? I know the answer to that question. And so do you.
  - Alenycus 6y ago
    Glad to see people probably over 100 are participating in hacker news. Unless you grew up in Weimar Germany, you have never seen your country taken over by Nazis
  - mariksolo 6y ago
    It's easy to talk in platitudes that Nazis' free speech should be silenced when you've never lived somewhere with no free speech or been accused of being a Nazi.
  - Chris2048 6y ago
    I'll have to cast doubt on you living in a country occupied by the Nazis. Where and when are you talking about?
fatlasp 6y ago
> Woke crazies try to impose their ideology on others by complaining and shaming on the Internet. I would argue that what ebay is doing is simply a permutation of this idea. Woke companies deciding what is and what is not suitable for you to spend your money on (shaming you for not spending your earned value on something 'worthy'). Meanwhile they don't seem to have a problem with mein kempf or however its spelled.
eckza 6y ago
The problem here, as I see it, is that Silicon Valley is becoming increasingly interested in moderating and enforcing social policy. If this doesn't scare you, it should.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  Boy do I miss the days when SV was a libertarian paradise. I’d love to read a book or essay describing how we went from cypherpunks to left-wing moral crusaders in less than a generation.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - eckza 6y ago
    It's simple: money. "The Internet" became "social media", which quickly became "the media". Game, set, match.
- jmull 6y ago
  What scares me is the implication here that someone should be dictating social policy to companies and people. What are you suggesting? If a company is branded "Silicon Valley" it should no longer be allowed to make their own content decisions? If not them, then *who will make those decisions for them?* A political government board? Talk about scary.
  - eckza 6y ago
    Social policy should be dictated by a government that is "by the people, for the people". We the People should be able to make these decisions, by a vote, on our own behalf. That was the plan. Obviously, the American political system is not in an ideal state (to put it mildly), but at least the sweeping bureaucratic inefficiencies make it hard enough to really change the temperature of the water by more than a few degrees in either direction. "Silicon Valley" is just shorthand for "massive tech monopolies that have an outsized, inescapable, and pervasive influence on the way that every living person goes about their daily business"; and when you have amoral, profit-driven corporations that can "move fast and break things" - who are incentivized to wield their influence in whatever way serves their immediate interests - the human condition be damned, well... you end up where we are, here, now. I am suggesting that we are not prepared to regulate companies like FAANG & Friends in a way that keeps them from remaking humanity in their own image as a means to their own ends. I am suggesting that it is horrifying that privately-held companies without any incentive to be responsible for the consequences of their actions against humanity, writ large, are able to effect social policy so much.
chmod600 6y ago
Nobody is suggesting that eBay should be forced to facilitate the sale of a patticular book. The concern is over what society feels is shameful and how it's handled. Right now we are ashamed of things we shouldn't be and the remedy we're choosing is exclusion. That doesn't sound like a formula for success. On top of that, this is all being pushed by a tiny minority that has gained more power than we realized. Surely some tiny fraction of people think Dr. Seuss is offensive. A tiny fraction of people overall, a tiny fraction of eBay employees/shareholders, etc. It's always concerning when these tiny minority views can push everyone else around.
- jmull 6y ago
  That's all fine. You think eBay should sell those books. I do too. My question is, who's decision is it to make? Yours? Mine? The government's (through laws or regulations)? Or ebay's?
  - chmod600 6y ago
    To answer directly, it's not eBay's decision because eBay is not a single person. I guess it's the CEOs, or someone under them, or maybe the board, or the shareholders. I don't want to override the decision. But there is a disturbing context to the decision that's worth discussing. Why are people making these decisions? Why are they coordinated and collective? Who are the beneficiaries? And have we, as voters, shareholders, etc., put trust in the wrong leaders? Maybe all this crazy stuff professors have been promoting all this time wasn't just for attention. Maybe they meant it and taught their students to do it. And we are now seeing the results.
  - loveistheanswer 6y ago
    Parents should be the ones deciding what their children should and should not read, not corporations.
    - jmull 6y ago
      But they aren't deciding what your children read. Just what they list.
therealjumbo 6y ago
>Woke crazies try to impose their ideology on others by complaining and shaming on the Internet. >I get worried when people promote the idea that compelling others speech is pro free speech. It's the modern newspeak. That is essentially what the woke crazies do all the time by getting people fired and other economic consequences if they don't fall in line. Conversely, I think other people are criticizing the decision of the company, and the company culture that lead to the decision. That's different than compelling speech or considering using the gov't to compel speech.

by jmull 6y ago

lodi 6y ago

> If you believe in liberty as a principle don't you have to support ebay's decision to decide whether or not they want to sell a particular book? Not exactly, no. Even the most laissez faire among us would probably agree that you need to set and enforce some ground rules to prevent monopolies, externalities, information assymetries, and other market failures. Also ebay isn't a bookseller choosing what books to stock; it's just an exchange for buyers and sellers to directly transact with each other.

jmull 6y ago
> Even the most laissez faire among us would probably agree that you need to set and enforce some ground rules to prevent monopolies, externalities, information assymetries, and other market failures. Sure, of course there are ground rules. Things that are illegal are not permitted. But what are you suggesting the rule would be that would apply in this case? And by rule, we're taking about a law, right? Otherwise, it wouldn't be binding and we're right back to where eBay is within its rights to decide not sell (or list, if you prefer) these books. To be clear, I think it's fine to complain about ebay's stance here. I don't agree with it. But you can't do it in the name of free speech or liberty generally as the previous poster is attempting to do.

Wolfenstein98k 6y ago

You can support the right to be a Nazi while strongly criticising it. People can say that they really think eBay is doing the wrong thing, and maybe even boycott them, without necessarily saying they should be forced by law to stock children's books that became out of fashion thirty seconds ago.

nindalf 6y ago
> You can support the right to be a Nazi while strongly criticising it. You have the luxury of never having seen your country and culture being taken over by Nazis. Never living with the regret of being tolerant of Nazis. I have. It sucks. It's so easy to talk in platitudes like this when you know your own life won't be affected in any way. How about supporting the right of QAnon adherents to spread their poisonous propaganda? What about when you see it's support growing rapidly? Would you still support it if it looked like you might be living in a society where the majority are QAnoners? I know the answer to that question. And so do you.
- Alenycus 6y ago
  Glad to see people probably over 100 are participating in hacker news. Unless you grew up in Weimar Germany, you have never seen your country taken over by Nazis
- mariksolo 6y ago
  It's easy to talk in platitudes that Nazis' free speech should be silenced when you've never lived somewhere with no free speech or been accused of being a Nazi.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  I'll have to cast doubt on you living in a country occupied by the Nazis. Where and when are you talking about?

fatlasp 6y ago

> Woke crazies try to impose their ideology on others by complaining and shaming on the Internet. I would argue that what ebay is doing is simply a permutation of this idea. Woke companies deciding what is and what is not suitable for you to spend your money on (shaming you for not spending your earned value on something 'worthy'). Meanwhile they don't seem to have a problem with mein kempf or however its spelled.

eckza 6y ago

The problem here, as I see it, is that Silicon Valley is becoming increasingly interested in moderating and enforcing social policy. If this doesn't scare you, it should.

ceilingcorner 6y ago
Boy do I miss the days when SV was a libertarian paradise. I’d love to read a book or essay describing how we went from cypherpunks to left-wing moral crusaders in less than a generation.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- eckza 6y ago
  It's simple: money. "The Internet" became "social media", which quickly became "the media". Game, set, match.
jmull 6y ago
What scares me is the implication here that someone should be dictating social policy to companies and people. What are you suggesting? If a company is branded "Silicon Valley" it should no longer be allowed to make their own content decisions? If not them, then *who will make those decisions for them?* A political government board? Talk about scary.
- eckza 6y ago
  Social policy should be dictated by a government that is "by the people, for the people". We the People should be able to make these decisions, by a vote, on our own behalf. That was the plan. Obviously, the American political system is not in an ideal state (to put it mildly), but at least the sweeping bureaucratic inefficiencies make it hard enough to really change the temperature of the water by more than a few degrees in either direction. "Silicon Valley" is just shorthand for "massive tech monopolies that have an outsized, inescapable, and pervasive influence on the way that every living person goes about their daily business"; and when you have amoral, profit-driven corporations that can "move fast and break things" - who are incentivized to wield their influence in whatever way serves their immediate interests - the human condition be damned, well... you end up where we are, here, now. I am suggesting that we are not prepared to regulate companies like FAANG & Friends in a way that keeps them from remaking humanity in their own image as a means to their own ends. I am suggesting that it is horrifying that privately-held companies without any incentive to be responsible for the consequences of their actions against humanity, writ large, are able to effect social policy so much.

chmod600 6y ago

Nobody is suggesting that eBay should be forced to facilitate the sale of a patticular book. The concern is over what society feels is shameful and how it's handled. Right now we are ashamed of things we shouldn't be and the remedy we're choosing is exclusion. That doesn't sound like a formula for success. On top of that, this is all being pushed by a tiny minority that has gained more power than we realized. Surely some tiny fraction of people think Dr. Seuss is offensive. A tiny fraction of people overall, a tiny fraction of eBay employees/shareholders, etc. It's always concerning when these tiny minority views can push everyone else around.

jmull 6y ago
That's all fine. You think eBay should sell those books. I do too. My question is, who's decision is it to make? Yours? Mine? The government's (through laws or regulations)? Or ebay's?
- chmod600 6y ago
  To answer directly, it's not eBay's decision because eBay is not a single person. I guess it's the CEOs, or someone under them, or maybe the board, or the shareholders. I don't want to override the decision. But there is a disturbing context to the decision that's worth discussing. Why are people making these decisions? Why are they coordinated and collective? Who are the beneficiaries? And have we, as voters, shareholders, etc., put trust in the wrong leaders? Maybe all this crazy stuff professors have been promoting all this time wasn't just for attention. Maybe they meant it and taught their students to do it. And we are now seeing the results.
- loveistheanswer 6y ago
  Parents should be the ones deciding what their children should and should not read, not corporations.
  - jmull 6y ago
    But they aren't deciding what your children read. Just what they list.

therealjumbo 6y ago

>Woke crazies try to impose their ideology on others by complaining and shaming on the Internet. >I get worried when people promote the idea that compelling others speech is pro free speech. It's the modern newspeak. That is essentially what the woke crazies do all the time by getting people fired and other economic consequences if they don't fall in line. Conversely, I think other people are criticizing the decision of the company, and the company culture that lead to the decision. That's different than compelling speech or considering using the gov't to compel speech.