3 ms·

> Think of a private party instead The extent to which corporations should be considered private entities does not seem like a settled question to me. Your co

> Think of a private party instead The extent to which corporations should be considered private entities does not seem like a settled question to me. Your corporation has no natural right to exist, and therefore does not have the natural right to do business solely as it pleases. > and you have about the same level of responsibility for your party as twitch has for their platform. What responsibility are they exercising? If the behavior on their platform is not disruptive to it, then what precisely are they defending their users _from_? > You probably also don't care what the justice system thinks about the invitations to your party. Invite someone on the most wanted list. I can't imagine it playing out that well for you.

viraptor 6y ago
> If the behavior on their platform is not disruptive to it, then what precisely are they defending their users _from_? From being surrounded by Adams. Either you act in cases like that, or you become known as "that place that likes to invite Adam (and others)". And it's completely up to the host which side they want to be on. Twitch chose to end the invitation. > Invite someone on the most wanted list. That's not even close to the case discussed here.
- DarkByte8 6y ago
  The problem is who judges the Adams and decide that they are assholes. People are worried that the judge will not be fair and it will be biased in favor of some ideology.
  - viraptor 6y ago
    Of course at some point it will not be fair. No system is and people make mistakes. The question is - is it going to be less fair / more biased than not applying the same policy.
thephyber 6y ago
Honest question: is there an exhaustive list of natural rights? The only ones I know about are related to the Declaration of Independence and I don’t have any evidence they are comprehensive. I don’t have any evidence to believe of a conscious higher power, so my list of natural rights is likely to differ from people who do.
- krapp 6y ago
  No, because "natural rights", like all rights, are a human abstraction and thus open to interpretation, political and religious bias and difference of opinion. They don't actually exist in Nature and so can't actually be objectively quantified. The Declaration of Independence was written by men who believed they had a God-given right to own other men as property after all.
tehwebguy 6y ago
> then what precisely are they defending their users _from_? You are replying to a poor argument from the parent poster, they don't have to be protecting anyone, it's fine for them to simply say "I don't want that jerk at my party" > Your corporation has no natural right to exist Natural right is a weird qualifier, some corps have a legal right or privilege to exist depending on "must grant" or "may grant" in the locality. > and therefore does not have the natural right to do business solely as it pleases Well sure, they aren't allowed to ban people for their membership in a protected class, e.g. their race or disability for the same reason that they aren't allowed to sell cocaine or kill people, because the law prohibits all of those things.
g_p 6y ago
> The extent to which corporations should be considered private entities does not seem like a settled question to me. Your corporation has no natural right to exist, and therefore does not have the natural right to do business solely as it pleases. This is a particularly interesting topic - a lot of the parallels around private vs. public places seem to have eroded over time. Facebook, Twitter and others are now serving the function of a public place. They are means of communication used by governments and elected leaders. I suspect at some point soon there will be a shift in the balance here, to try and address the extent to which companies are "private entities" sitting outside of the legal frameworks, where they deal with the public. NJ views privately owned shopping malls to be public places from a 1st amendment perspective, even though it is not publicly owned - it isn't a huge leap to consider FB or similar as a public space on that basis.

viraptor 6y ago

> If the behavior on their platform is not disruptive to it, then what precisely are they defending their users _from_? From being surrounded by Adams. Either you act in cases like that, or you become known as "that place that likes to invite Adam (and others)". And it's completely up to the host which side they want to be on. Twitch chose to end the invitation. > Invite someone on the most wanted list. That's not even close to the case discussed here.

DarkByte8 6y ago
The problem is who judges the Adams and decide that they are assholes. People are worried that the judge will not be fair and it will be biased in favor of some ideology.
- viraptor 6y ago
  Of course at some point it will not be fair. No system is and people make mistakes. The question is - is it going to be less fair / more biased than not applying the same policy.

thephyber 6y ago

Honest question: is there an exhaustive list of natural rights? The only ones I know about are related to the Declaration of Independence and I don’t have any evidence they are comprehensive. I don’t have any evidence to believe of a conscious higher power, so my list of natural rights is likely to differ from people who do.

krapp 6y ago
No, because "natural rights", like all rights, are a human abstraction and thus open to interpretation, political and religious bias and difference of opinion. They don't actually exist in Nature and so can't actually be objectively quantified. The Declaration of Independence was written by men who believed they had a God-given right to own other men as property after all.

tehwebguy 6y ago

> then what precisely are they defending their users _from_? You are replying to a poor argument from the parent poster, they don't have to be protecting anyone, it's fine for them to simply say "I don't want that jerk at my party" > Your corporation has no natural right to exist Natural right is a weird qualifier, some corps have a legal right or privilege to exist depending on "must grant" or "may grant" in the locality. > and therefore does not have the natural right to do business solely as it pleases Well sure, they aren't allowed to ban people for their membership in a protected class, e.g. their race or disability for the same reason that they aren't allowed to sell cocaine or kill people, because the law prohibits all of those things.

g_p 6y ago

> The extent to which corporations should be considered private entities does not seem like a settled question to me. Your corporation has no natural right to exist, and therefore does not have the natural right to do business solely as it pleases. This is a particularly interesting topic - a lot of the parallels around private vs. public places seem to have eroded over time. Facebook, Twitter and others are now serving the function of a public place. They are means of communication used by governments and elected leaders. I suspect at some point soon there will be a shift in the balance here, to try and address the extent to which companies are "private entities" sitting outside of the legal frameworks, where they deal with the public. NJ views privately owned shopping malls to be public places from a 1st amendment perspective, even though it is not publicly owned - it isn't a huge leap to consider FB or similar as a public space on that basis.