3 ms·

Are you suggesting that we should amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include "political opinion, affiliation, or belief" as a new protected class? If so, I

Are you suggesting that we should amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include "political opinion, affiliation, or belief" as a new protected class? If so, I think you may not have thought out the potential repercussions of that change.

CountDrewku 5y ago
You don't think people's personal beliefs and allowing speech without repercussions is something that should be protected? I kinda think you're the one not considering repercussions of allowing these platforms to drive social norms. If your opinion holds so much water then you should welcome the opportunity to have public discourse with someone who thinks differently. What I hear when someone supports removing speech is just fear. Fear that their specific opinion won't stand up against someone else's. Regardless of whether there's a legal way to stop these platforms from their current crusade I don't' see how any one can morally support what they're doing.
- anoonmoose 5y ago
  I think that the First Amendment, as written, is a good thing. I think the government should be restricted heavily from punishing people for their speech. I generally think that private organizations and individuals should not be held to that same requirement. I think the Internet should be a utility, and ISPs should not be able to deny you access to the Internet. I think that Twitter should have the same right to deny service that my local bar does, which is to say, they can discriminate as long as it's not against a protected class.
  - CountDrewku 5y ago
    > I think the government should be restricted heavily from punishing people for their speech. Ok then explain to me why it's ok for these politicians to celebrate removal and de-platforming of individuals and post about it on social media? I'd also like to know why they're allowed to have hearings asking when certain platforms are going to ban specific rival politicians? >I think the Internet should be a utility, and ISPs should not be able to deny you access to the Internet. I think that Twitter should have the same right to deny service that my local bar does, which is to say, they can discriminate as long as it's not against a protected class. Explain? Why one and not the other? ISP's are businesses too. What I'm seeing when you write this is basically that you'd like to hold businesses you dislike to different standards that ones you don't. I assume you're ok with the social media stuff because it's catering to your opinions currently. You need to ask yourself if Trump had a stranglehold on Silicon Valley like the left currently does would you still be ok with your views? Additionally, once private businesses reach a point where they're too big and they control too much market share they need to be held to different standards. You mentioned ISP's this is exactly what's happened with them. They all start working in coercion just like the handful of big tech companies have. There are no competitors without building a entirely separate infrastructure now.
    - anoonmoose 5y ago
      > explain to me why it's ok for these politicians because they're just speaking (which is protected), the government did not actually remove or de-platform anyone. > why they're allowed to have hearings same as above. > Why one and not the other? For the same reason I think "roads" and "endpoints on the road" are different. For the same reason I think "electricity" and "water" should be utilities. It's a pipe. I just think they're different things.
      - CountDrewku 5y ago
        >because they're just speaking (which is protected), the government did not actually remove or de-platform anyone. You're not following what I'm saying. They're explicitly coercing companies into doing things due to the fact they can bring down real repercussions if they do not. The government is using big tech as a middle man to do their bidding and silence "bad" speech. That, is in fact the same as doing it themselves, therefore stomping all over the 1st amendment. Just because Pablo Escobar uses mules and dealers to peddle his drugs doesn't mean he's not guilty.
        anoonmoose 5y ago
        I am following what you're saying, I just think you're wrong. They are not "explicitly coercing companies". There is no law forcing the companies to do it, no stated punishment for not doing it, no evidence that the companies would actually receive punishment if they did not do it. I understand you think that is the same as doing it themselves- from a moral standpoint you may be correct, but in my opinion, legally you are completely incorrect, and I am defending the laws. Although, if you change your statement to "implicitly coercing companies", you may be actually fairly accurate, I just don't think that is a bad thing, it happens all the time.
barbacoa 5y ago
I'm saying the only difference between OP and a racist 1960's store owner is *who* they think should be excluded. Not that the Florida law holds merit. Just that the irony here is lost to most people.
- anoonmoose 5y ago
  It's not ironic because they aren't the same thing and that isn't the only difference. In one case, you're banning someone over something they can't change about themselves and didn't choose. In the other case, you're banning someone because of an opinion they hold, that you disagree with. I do not consider those to be the same thing. (Is the above also an argument that religious affiliation shouldn't be a protected class? Yes. Unpopular opinion that I hold, and I'll take the heat for it.)
- wonderwonder 5y ago
  You seem to be implying that 45% of the country's voting population who have the free choice to choose whatever political party they want is currently being treated the same as the 12% of the population that is African American (who are not free to choose the color of their skin) during Jim Crow. That is quite the persecution complex and quite a statement. If you are not stating this and I somehow got your intent wrong, my apologies. Additionally I did not state I want anyone removed from social media, I just stated that private companies are allowed to censor over things that dont fall under a protected status.
  - barbacoa 5y ago
    I'm not defending the actions of Trump voters or trying to paint them as martyrs. This is more a issue with principle and long term precedent. back after 9/11 Republicans were largely in favor of the patriot act because they thought it would only be used against those Muslims they didn't care for. Fifteen years later those same counter terrorism spying laws were used to spy on and undermine the Republican presidential candidate. That's irony. Decades from now when the political winds change again what do you think will happen the next Bernie Sanders type candidates get close to winning elections? Don't be surprised if all the tech companies use AI to throttle any online communication that is supportive and magnify anything negative of the populist candidate.

CountDrewku 5y ago

You don't think people's personal beliefs and allowing speech without repercussions is something that should be protected? I kinda think you're the one not considering repercussions of allowing these platforms to drive social norms. If your opinion holds so much water then you should welcome the opportunity to have public discourse with someone who thinks differently. What I hear when someone supports removing speech is just fear. Fear that their specific opinion won't stand up against someone else's. Regardless of whether there's a legal way to stop these platforms from their current crusade I don't' see how any one can morally support what they're doing.

anoonmoose 5y ago
I think that the First Amendment, as written, is a good thing. I think the government should be restricted heavily from punishing people for their speech. I generally think that private organizations and individuals should not be held to that same requirement. I think the Internet should be a utility, and ISPs should not be able to deny you access to the Internet. I think that Twitter should have the same right to deny service that my local bar does, which is to say, they can discriminate as long as it's not against a protected class.
- CountDrewku 5y ago
  > I think the government should be restricted heavily from punishing people for their speech. Ok then explain to me why it's ok for these politicians to celebrate removal and de-platforming of individuals and post about it on social media? I'd also like to know why they're allowed to have hearings asking when certain platforms are going to ban specific rival politicians? >I think the Internet should be a utility, and ISPs should not be able to deny you access to the Internet. I think that Twitter should have the same right to deny service that my local bar does, which is to say, they can discriminate as long as it's not against a protected class. Explain? Why one and not the other? ISP's are businesses too. What I'm seeing when you write this is basically that you'd like to hold businesses you dislike to different standards that ones you don't. I assume you're ok with the social media stuff because it's catering to your opinions currently. You need to ask yourself if Trump had a stranglehold on Silicon Valley like the left currently does would you still be ok with your views? Additionally, once private businesses reach a point where they're too big and they control too much market share they need to be held to different standards. You mentioned ISP's this is exactly what's happened with them. They all start working in coercion just like the handful of big tech companies have. There are no competitors without building a entirely separate infrastructure now.
  - anoonmoose 5y ago
    > explain to me why it's ok for these politicians because they're just speaking (which is protected), the government did not actually remove or de-platform anyone. > why they're allowed to have hearings same as above. > Why one and not the other? For the same reason I think "roads" and "endpoints on the road" are different. For the same reason I think "electricity" and "water" should be utilities. It's a pipe. I just think they're different things.
    - CountDrewku 5y ago
      >because they're just speaking (which is protected), the government did not actually remove or de-platform anyone. You're not following what I'm saying. They're explicitly coercing companies into doing things due to the fact they can bring down real repercussions if they do not. The government is using big tech as a middle man to do their bidding and silence "bad" speech. That, is in fact the same as doing it themselves, therefore stomping all over the 1st amendment. Just because Pablo Escobar uses mules and dealers to peddle his drugs doesn't mean he's not guilty.
      - anoonmoose 5y ago
        I am following what you're saying, I just think you're wrong. They are not "explicitly coercing companies". There is no law forcing the companies to do it, no stated punishment for not doing it, no evidence that the companies would actually receive punishment if they did not do it. I understand you think that is the same as doing it themselves- from a moral standpoint you may be correct, but in my opinion, legally you are completely incorrect, and I am defending the laws. Although, if you change your statement to "implicitly coercing companies", you may be actually fairly accurate, I just don't think that is a bad thing, it happens all the time.

barbacoa 5y ago

I'm saying the only difference between OP and a racist 1960's store owner is *who* they think should be excluded. Not that the Florida law holds merit. Just that the irony here is lost to most people.

anoonmoose 5y ago
It's not ironic because they aren't the same thing and that isn't the only difference. In one case, you're banning someone over something they can't change about themselves and didn't choose. In the other case, you're banning someone because of an opinion they hold, that you disagree with. I do not consider those to be the same thing. (Is the above also an argument that religious affiliation shouldn't be a protected class? Yes. Unpopular opinion that I hold, and I'll take the heat for it.)
wonderwonder 5y ago
You seem to be implying that 45% of the country's voting population who have the free choice to choose whatever political party they want is currently being treated the same as the 12% of the population that is African American (who are not free to choose the color of their skin) during Jim Crow. That is quite the persecution complex and quite a statement. If you are not stating this and I somehow got your intent wrong, my apologies. Additionally I did not state I want anyone removed from social media, I just stated that private companies are allowed to censor over things that dont fall under a protected status.
- barbacoa 5y ago
  I'm not defending the actions of Trump voters or trying to paint them as martyrs. This is more a issue with principle and long term precedent. back after 9/11 Republicans were largely in favor of the patriot act because they thought it would only be used against those Muslims they didn't care for. Fifteen years later those same counter terrorism spying laws were used to spy on and undermine the Republican presidential candidate. That's irony. Decades from now when the political winds change again what do you think will happen the next Bernie Sanders type candidates get close to winning elections? Don't be surprised if all the tech companies use AI to throttle any online communication that is supportive and magnify anything negative of the populist candidate.