6 ms·

I wish I had the data to create a Venn diagram of people who believe that bakeries should be able to refuse gay customers, and those who are screaming that big

I wish I had the data to create a Venn diagram of people who believe that bakeries should be able to refuse gay customers, and those who are screaming that big tech can't just arbitrarily decide who it does business with. I hear a lot of voices in these threads that would occupy the overlap of that Venn Diagram. The cognitive dissonance is really something.

diebeforei485 6y ago
The issue with Big Tech is that: (1) They can't be sued (read: your case would be dismissed) for any of their decisions, because of Section 230. (2) They are also not a common carrier, and not subject to those restrictions. Essentially they get many of the benefits of being a common carrier, but without being a common carrier and having the associated obligations. That's the difference between Big Tech and bakeries. Big Tech could literally object to all LGBT content on their platform and because of Section 230, your case would be dismissed. Bakeries don't have anywhere near the amount of freedom as Big Tech enjoys from Section 230.
- tzs 6y ago
  > Big Tech could literally object to all LGBT content on their platform and because of Section 230, your case would be dismissed. I don't see how Section 230 is relevant there at all. Section 230 is about content that appears on your site, not content that does not appear on your site.
indigo945 6y ago
While I don't think bakeries should refuse gay customers, you have to admit that there is a difference in terms of social capital and political power between a local bakery and a multi-national company with more revenue than entire nation states' GDP?
- threatofrain 6y ago
  This went to the Supreme Court, and will thus have a sort of permanence that may outlast your lifetime.
- shakkhar 6y ago
  Exactly. Apple refusing your app is an anti-trust issue. Local baker refusing you service is a civil rights issue.
taxidump 6y ago
I would say that parlor was created to get away from big tech options and yet Apple, Amazon and Google were overreaching and IMO attacking the platform.
dahfizz 6y ago
Isn't the opposite true as well? Lots of people think bakeries should not be able to refuse gay customers, but do think big tech should be able to arbitrarily choose who they do business with. Nearly everyone sees the world through the lens of their Party, and come up with all sorts of justifications afterwards.
- alexilliamson 6y ago
  Yes that's a good point. I want to see both venn diagrams.
  - antisthenes 6y ago
    Here's a hot take: stop trying to label people and neatly place them within Venn diagrams. People can have complex positions that don't neatly fit into a binary view of the world.
    - jfengel 6y ago
      The law creates a binary view of the world. Actions are either legal or not, and we all have to live with the same law. Complexity makes hypocrisy inevitable in that system, but that doesn't make it desirable. You'd like to think that somebody confronted with objective, straightforward, simple hypocrisies would be willing to seek a compromise. Often, it's the opposite.
      - antisthenes 6y ago
        Well, I'd like to believe that several reasonable people holding complex ideological positions can come to a compromise in terms of a more of less binary law, and abide by it, despite not being in complete agreement with it. Maybe that's too optimistic, but there it is.
        jfengel 6y ago
        I would love to believe that, but in my experience, the law is most often set by people holding the strongest positions. That creates enthusiasm and certainty. Discussing complex ideological positions is dull and uncertain. Those strongest positions are usually held by a minority, but often, that minority can forge an alliance with other minorities to become a majority. Maybe that's too pessimistic, but there it is. Paradoxically, I hope you're right.
tyre 6y ago
It’s not dissonance. They believe that things they don’t like shouldn’t happen and things they do like should be allowed. They want to be homophobic and not have their political opinions censured. There’s no inconsistency there. It bothers me when people bring this up about SCOTUS appointments. “Mitch McConnell said Merrick Garland can’t be voted on because it is an election year then did the same with ACB weeks before an election. What a hypocrite!” The right has cared about one thing above all else for the past decade: put conservative judges on the bench; as many as they can, as fast as possible. There’s no “dissonance”. They know exactly what they care about, what they’re doing, and why. It’s the same thing here. People don’t go by frameworks. They backfill justifications for their feelings. If those justifications overlap in weird ways, it’s just that they’re bad at consistently translating those justifications. The feelings are the same and not contradictory.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
throwawaysea 6y ago
First off, that argument cuts both ways - you could equally say that the people arguing Twitter or Facebook can deny some customers but a bakery should accept all customers are displaying cognitive dissonance. But I would argue that the two situations are actually not comparable. There are lots of alternative choices available for a random bakery. But there are no alternatives available for big tech companies. They are protected from competition due to network effects or due to their sheer size. They operate the public digital town square, but are not subject to regulation like utilities are. They carry almost all societal speech today, and their censorship is as powerful as when a government does it, but they are still not required to implement any of the rules (the Constitution) that apply to our government. Big tech is not operating in a healthy environment of market competition.
tsdlts 6y ago
There's healthy competition between local bakeries. If one refuses you, you can just go to another. Try doing that with the App Store. P.S. I don't believe companies should be able to discriminate based on sexual preference, I just dislike this comparison.
janlin1999 6y ago
For anyone who thinks that the parent comment refers to the Colorado baker case (https://apnews.com/article/130137ace2e8416aa207456827fae92b https://apnews.com/article/130137ace2e8416aa207456827fae92b), note that the baker did not refuse gay customers per se, but refused to customize cakes that celebrated gay marriage: gay customers could still buy non-customized cakes. For anyone who thinks the above is too minor of a distinction, a potentially worthwhile question to explore would be whether, for example, an African-American baker (who customizes cakes) should be allowed to deny a customer's request to celebrate religiously motivated white supremacy. Personally, under current law, I think Apple and Google should be able to determine whether an app like Parler is allowed on their platforms, although I think that concentration of power (whether in a corporation or in a government) is generally not good for society. I also think that there should be some base level of services (e.g. ISP) that should be treated as a utility (e.g. we don't deny someone water service because of his bigoted opinions).
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Corrado 6y ago
  That's a very good point, and a distinction that I had not thought of before. Maybe it comes down to legality. Homosexuality is not illegal but is racism illegal? Even religiously motivated racism?
  - fooey 6y ago
    Race and sex are protected classes Racists are not a protected class
    - fitzie 6y ago
      there is a legal and ethical argument. what constitutes a protected class should not be limited by legal obligations, but to a liberal democracy point of view. according to some recent polls liberals themselves report the most fear of their views being silenced, and these tech platforms should really think about what societal harm they are doing when nearly all dissent can be labeled as hate or racism and silenced. said another way, I'd like to understand exactly how were suppose to discuss sensitive issues l(for example immigration policy) when anything one side says is immediately labels racist.
mensetmanusman 6y ago
Depending on how you frame it, these cases are exactly the same, or completely different.
wayneftw 6y ago
Size matters. A small bakery that affected next to nobody should not be treated the same as big tech companies that affect nearly everybody.

diebeforei485 6y ago

The issue with Big Tech is that: (1) They can't be sued (read: your case would be dismissed) for any of their decisions, because of Section 230. (2) They are also not a common carrier, and not subject to those restrictions. Essentially they get many of the benefits of being a common carrier, but without being a common carrier and having the associated obligations. That's the difference between Big Tech and bakeries. Big Tech could literally object to all LGBT content on their platform and because of Section 230, your case would be dismissed. Bakeries don't have anywhere near the amount of freedom as Big Tech enjoys from Section 230.

tzs 6y ago
> Big Tech could literally object to all LGBT content on their platform and because of Section 230, your case would be dismissed. I don't see how Section 230 is relevant there at all. Section 230 is about content that appears on your site, not content that does not appear on your site.

indigo945 6y ago

While I don't think bakeries should refuse gay customers, you have to admit that there is a difference in terms of social capital and political power between a local bakery and a multi-national company with more revenue than entire nation states' GDP?

threatofrain 6y ago
This went to the Supreme Court, and will thus have a sort of permanence that may outlast your lifetime.
shakkhar 6y ago
Exactly. Apple refusing your app is an anti-trust issue. Local baker refusing you service is a civil rights issue.

taxidump 6y ago

I would say that parlor was created to get away from big tech options and yet Apple, Amazon and Google were overreaching and IMO attacking the platform.

dahfizz 6y ago

Isn't the opposite true as well? Lots of people think bakeries should not be able to refuse gay customers, but do think big tech should be able to arbitrarily choose who they do business with. Nearly everyone sees the world through the lens of their Party, and come up with all sorts of justifications afterwards.

alexilliamson 6y ago
Yes that's a good point. I want to see both venn diagrams.
- antisthenes 6y ago
  Here's a hot take: stop trying to label people and neatly place them within Venn diagrams. People can have complex positions that don't neatly fit into a binary view of the world.
  - jfengel 6y ago
    The law creates a binary view of the world. Actions are either legal or not, and we all have to live with the same law. Complexity makes hypocrisy inevitable in that system, but that doesn't make it desirable. You'd like to think that somebody confronted with objective, straightforward, simple hypocrisies would be willing to seek a compromise. Often, it's the opposite.
    - antisthenes 6y ago
      Well, I'd like to believe that several reasonable people holding complex ideological positions can come to a compromise in terms of a more of less binary law, and abide by it, despite not being in complete agreement with it. Maybe that's too optimistic, but there it is.
      - jfengel 6y ago
        I would love to believe that, but in my experience, the law is most often set by people holding the strongest positions. That creates enthusiasm and certainty. Discussing complex ideological positions is dull and uncertain. Those strongest positions are usually held by a minority, but often, that minority can forge an alliance with other minorities to become a majority. Maybe that's too pessimistic, but there it is. Paradoxically, I hope you're right.

tyre 6y ago

It’s not dissonance. They believe that things they don’t like shouldn’t happen and things they do like should be allowed. They want to be homophobic and not have their political opinions censured. There’s no inconsistency there. It bothers me when people bring this up about SCOTUS appointments. “Mitch McConnell said Merrick Garland can’t be voted on because it is an election year then did the same with ACB weeks before an election. What a hypocrite!” The right has cared about one thing above all else for the past decade: put conservative judges on the bench; as many as they can, as fast as possible. There’s no “dissonance”. They know exactly what they care about, what they’re doing, and why. It’s the same thing here. People don’t go by frameworks. They backfill justifications for their feelings. If those justifications overlap in weird ways, it’s just that they’re bad at consistently translating those justifications. The feelings are the same and not contradictory.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

throwawaysea 6y ago

First off, that argument cuts both ways - you could equally say that the people arguing Twitter or Facebook can deny some customers but a bakery should accept all customers are displaying cognitive dissonance. But I would argue that the two situations are actually not comparable. There are lots of alternative choices available for a random bakery. But there are no alternatives available for big tech companies. They are protected from competition due to network effects or due to their sheer size. They operate the public digital town square, but are not subject to regulation like utilities are. They carry almost all societal speech today, and their censorship is as powerful as when a government does it, but they are still not required to implement any of the rules (the Constitution) that apply to our government. Big tech is not operating in a healthy environment of market competition.

tsdlts 6y ago

There's healthy competition between local bakeries. If one refuses you, you can just go to another. Try doing that with the App Store. P.S. I don't believe companies should be able to discriminate based on sexual preference, I just dislike this comparison.

janlin1999 6y ago

For anyone who thinks that the parent comment refers to the Colorado baker case (https://apnews.com/article/130137ace2e8416aa207456827fae92b https://apnews.com/article/130137ace2e8416aa207456827fae92b), note that the baker did not refuse gay customers per se, but refused to customize cakes that celebrated gay marriage: gay customers could still buy non-customized cakes. For anyone who thinks the above is too minor of a distinction, a potentially worthwhile question to explore would be whether, for example, an African-American baker (who customizes cakes) should be allowed to deny a customer's request to celebrate religiously motivated white supremacy. Personally, under current law, I think Apple and Google should be able to determine whether an app like Parler is allowed on their platforms, although I think that concentration of power (whether in a corporation or in a government) is generally not good for society. I also think that there should be some base level of services (e.g. ISP) that should be treated as a utility (e.g. we don't deny someone water service because of his bigoted opinions).

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Corrado 6y ago
That's a very good point, and a distinction that I had not thought of before. Maybe it comes down to legality. Homosexuality is not illegal but is racism illegal? Even religiously motivated racism?
- fooey 6y ago
  Race and sex are protected classes Racists are not a protected class
  - fitzie 6y ago
    there is a legal and ethical argument. what constitutes a protected class should not be limited by legal obligations, but to a liberal democracy point of view. according to some recent polls liberals themselves report the most fear of their views being silenced, and these tech platforms should really think about what societal harm they are doing when nearly all dissent can be labeled as hate or racism and silenced. said another way, I'd like to understand exactly how were suppose to discuss sensitive issues l(for example immigration policy) when anything one side says is immediately labels racist.

mensetmanusman 6y ago

Depending on how you frame it, these cases are exactly the same, or completely different.

wayneftw 6y ago

Size matters. A small bakery that affected next to nobody should not be treated the same as big tech companies that affect nearly everybody.