4 ms·

You invite me to a party, I show up and say things that you find offensive. I become disruptive. You ask me to leave. Is it a moral principle that you must allo

You invite me to a party, I show up and say things that you find offensive. I become disruptive. You ask me to leave. Is it a moral principle that you must allow me to remain at your party and to allow me to continue to say things that you find offensive? Your house + invitation and expectation of behaving = Private company + service they allow you to sign up for under agreement with the TOS No company is under any obligation to continue to allow you to use their service once the invitation to their party has been revoked for you.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago
Party in my house is not equivalent to event in a public square My house is not one of only two party places on planet earth Corporations are not people, they don't have human rights, they don't have feeling and they don't go to jail when they kill people. They are legal fiction that exists only to enable economic growth, and they cause economic harm instead, they must be shut down.
- techrat 5y ago
  Private property, of which corporations reside within and servers consist of, are not equivalent to an event in a public square, either. Apple is not the only company of its kind on Planet Earth. Whether it's Twitter, Hacker News, Reddit, Slashdot or your 10 user niche hobby forum, none of the people who own the private servers that each of those venues reside on are required to host your words. That is the part that you're missing when you misinterpret the private party metaphor.
  - ClumsyPilot 5y ago
    public square means public access and public importance, it can be private property Apple is one of two companies, that can single-handedly shut down any business, globally, that requires mobile software to function, at any time for no reason. When our national governments required contact tracing software to deal with the pandemic, it was Apple and Google that could block democratic government from protecting it's people. This has massive implications for liberty, economy and national security. The private party metaphor is simply delusional.
anoncake 5y ago
They're an individual. Apple is a powerful corporation Completely different circumstances.
- techrat 5y ago
  "Corporations are people." Regardless of your feelings on the matter, corporations are not a government entity. Period. There is no legal precedent that requires a company to be bound by the same rules as the government when it comes to free speech. They invite you to their party and they can disinvite you for any reason whatsoever. If a corporation says they don't want guns on their property, are you going to say it's your moral right under the 2nd Amendment? When you use an arbitrary term like "moral" (what is moral to you may not be moral to me, as it's personally defined), you can redefine the circumstances to mean virtually anything. To continue to demand 'free speech' to mean that anything private, individual resident or company service, must continue to allow you to say what you want to say within somebody else's space is morally offensive to me. I have a right to say "No." So do the owners of Hacker News. Are you going to say every account flagged as [dead] is being deprived of their free speech?
  - anoncake 5y ago
    > Regardless of your feelings on the matter, corporations are not a government entity. Period. Obviously. > If a corporation says they don't want guns on their property, are you going to say it's your moral right under the 2nd Amendment? No, because I'm aware that what's moral and what's currently legal are entirely different things. > When you use an arbitrary term like "moral" (what is moral to you may not be moral to me, as it's personally defined), you can redefine the circumstances to mean virtually anything. So what you're saying is the only arguments you accept are appeals to authority – which is what legal arguments are. > To continue to demand 'free speech' to mean that anything private, individual resident or company service, must continue to allow you to say what you want to say within somebody else's space is morally offensive to me. Not somebody – something. Apple is not a person (except legally). > I have a right to say "No." Absolutely. > So do the owners of Hacker News. I think so. It's no real danger to free speech. We're talking about Apple though.

ClumsyPilot 5y ago

Party in my house is not equivalent to event in a public square My house is not one of only two party places on planet earth Corporations are not people, they don't have human rights, they don't have feeling and they don't go to jail when they kill people. They are legal fiction that exists only to enable economic growth, and they cause economic harm instead, they must be shut down.

techrat 5y ago
Private property, of which corporations reside within and servers consist of, are not equivalent to an event in a public square, either. Apple is not the only company of its kind on Planet Earth. Whether it's Twitter, Hacker News, Reddit, Slashdot or your 10 user niche hobby forum, none of the people who own the private servers that each of those venues reside on are required to host your words. That is the part that you're missing when you misinterpret the private party metaphor.
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  public square means public access and public importance, it can be private property Apple is one of two companies, that can single-handedly shut down any business, globally, that requires mobile software to function, at any time for no reason. When our national governments required contact tracing software to deal with the pandemic, it was Apple and Google that could block democratic government from protecting it's people. This has massive implications for liberty, economy and national security. The private party metaphor is simply delusional.

anoncake 5y ago

They're an individual. Apple is a powerful corporation Completely different circumstances.

techrat 5y ago
"Corporations are people." Regardless of your feelings on the matter, corporations are not a government entity. Period. There is no legal precedent that requires a company to be bound by the same rules as the government when it comes to free speech. They invite you to their party and they can disinvite you for any reason whatsoever. If a corporation says they don't want guns on their property, are you going to say it's your moral right under the 2nd Amendment? When you use an arbitrary term like "moral" (what is moral to you may not be moral to me, as it's personally defined), you can redefine the circumstances to mean virtually anything. To continue to demand 'free speech' to mean that anything private, individual resident or company service, must continue to allow you to say what you want to say within somebody else's space is morally offensive to me. I have a right to say "No." So do the owners of Hacker News. Are you going to say every account flagged as [dead] is being deprived of their free speech?
- anoncake 5y ago
  > Regardless of your feelings on the matter, corporations are not a government entity. Period. Obviously. > If a corporation says they don't want guns on their property, are you going to say it's your moral right under the 2nd Amendment? No, because I'm aware that what's moral and what's currently legal are entirely different things. > When you use an arbitrary term like "moral" (what is moral to you may not be moral to me, as it's personally defined), you can redefine the circumstances to mean virtually anything. So what you're saying is the only arguments you accept are appeals to authority – which is what legal arguments are. > To continue to demand 'free speech' to mean that anything private, individual resident or company service, must continue to allow you to say what you want to say within somebody else's space is morally offensive to me. Not somebody – something. Apple is not a person (except legally). > I have a right to say "No." Absolutely. > So do the owners of Hacker News. I think so. It's no real danger to free speech. We're talking about Apple though.