9 ms·

>How is this even a question? >Since when are private actors obligated to let them speak on private platforms? This is the same argument slave owners used to

>How is this even a question? >Since when are private actors obligated to let them speak on private platforms? This is the same argument slave owners used to defend their "private property", and that business owners used to ban black people from their private property. So, judging by the history of human rights, it's a perfectly valid question

jayd16 6y ago
Except we did decide a private business can refuse service unless its specific discrimination of a protected class. If anything this analogy proves the opposite of your argument.
- loveistheanswer 6y ago
  Are you implying we've reached the pinnacle of human rights, and can no longer progress or regress?
TulliusCicero 6y ago
> This is the same argument slave owners used to defend their "private property" The difference is that slavery is inherently wrong, whereas deciding on your own internal membership policies for some club, or internet forum, or what have you, is not inherently wrong. This is pretty obvious, because nobody's mad about the small private actors doing the same kind of thing. 99.9999% of the companies or private groups around, nobody gives a shit that they get to decide to ban whoever they like. They're just mad at Facebook and Twitter because they're big. Whereas "small time slaveowners" are still disgusting criminals. And I get that, these companies being more powerful, their decisions have wider knock-on effects. But the right solution is still alternatives, not the government micromanaging and second guessing every single decision they make. At most, you could mandate some kind of 'nutrition facts' policy, where policies must at least be up front and transparent.
- loveistheanswer 6y ago
  >But the right solution is still alternatives, not the government micromanaging and second guessing every single decision they make. Agreed! Perhaps a publicly funded (not advertising funded) digital public square which protects lawful speech could be a potential solution? >The difference is that slavery is inherently wrong, whereas deciding on your own internal membership policies for some club, or internet forum, or what have you, is not inherently wrong. What is and is not "inherently wrong" is subjective and always changing. Anyone who pretends that they do not believe in things which will be considered "inherently wrong" 10, 50, or 100 years from now has a god complex and is deeply ignorant of human psychology and history.

jayd16 6y ago

Except we did decide a private business can refuse service unless its specific discrimination of a protected class. If anything this analogy proves the opposite of your argument.

loveistheanswer 6y ago
Are you implying we've reached the pinnacle of human rights, and can no longer progress or regress?

TulliusCicero 6y ago

> This is the same argument slave owners used to defend their "private property" The difference is that slavery is inherently wrong, whereas deciding on your own internal membership policies for some club, or internet forum, or what have you, is not inherently wrong. This is pretty obvious, because nobody's mad about the small private actors doing the same kind of thing. 99.9999% of the companies or private groups around, nobody gives a shit that they get to decide to ban whoever they like. They're just mad at Facebook and Twitter because they're big. Whereas "small time slaveowners" are still disgusting criminals. And I get that, these companies being more powerful, their decisions have wider knock-on effects. But the right solution is still alternatives, not the government micromanaging and second guessing every single decision they make. At most, you could mandate some kind of 'nutrition facts' policy, where policies must at least be up front and transparent.

loveistheanswer 6y ago
>But the right solution is still alternatives, not the government micromanaging and second guessing every single decision they make. Agreed! Perhaps a publicly funded (not advertising funded) digital public square which protects lawful speech could be a potential solution? >The difference is that slavery is inherently wrong, whereas deciding on your own internal membership policies for some club, or internet forum, or what have you, is not inherently wrong. What is and is not "inherently wrong" is subjective and always changing. Anyone who pretends that they do not believe in things which will be considered "inherently wrong" 10, 50, or 100 years from now has a god complex and is deeply ignorant of human psychology and history.