4 ms·
Think about it this way, you build something that looks like a pub, provides the services of a pub and say you are open for business. Would it be really that su
by josefx 5y ago
Think about it this way, you build something that looks like a pub, provides the services of a pub and say you are open for business. Would it be really that surprising that the state enforces laws that apply to pubs on your business or would you tell the health inspector to fuck off and open his own pub if he has problems with it?
- 8ytecoder 5y agoYeah, but it’s still my property and you can’t make me serve a beer I don’t like.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- josefx 5y agoBut you will be required to serve non alcoholic drinks.
- em-bee 5y agothat are cheaper than the cheapest alcoholic one
- bakuninsbart 5y agoIf your pub, for example, refuses to serve people of color, then yes, the government will come in and shut it down.
- eli 5y agoSeems more like the government ordering you to serve a disorderly patron you previously ejected
- fnmall 5y agoI don't see any similarities here: A really disorderly patron is hard to avoid in a restaurant but easy to avoid on YouTube. Then, on YouTube (or woke mailing lists) there are mostly two sides, only one of which gets censored: The one that opposes the dominant clique. YouTube is full of filth that is kept up because it is non-political and makes money for Google. If Google were really woke, it would take down all videos that are demeaning to women (according to their ideology). They don't, because these videos are a cash cow.
- yorwba 5y agoIf you want a real analogy, it's more like a pub where most drinks are free because they're served by other customers and the owner makes money by auctioning ad space on the glasses. Anyone can go there to hand out free drinks, provided they follow the rules, like no alcohol in the kids' corner and no coca wine. If someone's drink is very popular, they get a cut of the pub's advertising revenue. Now someone walks in and starts offering Corona. It's not everyone's favorite, but still decently popular, and the owner has no problem with that. Until a few hours later, when a new line is added to the list of rules on the door: "no Corona". Then the owner tells the person handing out free Corona that they're breaking the rules and kicks them out. Is that fair? Not in this case, says the court. Everyone agrees to the rules when they walk through the door, but the owner can't just willy-nilly change them after the fact. (If you want to really understand the decision, you'll have to read the original instead of relying on analogies.)
- zadokshi 5y agoIt’s the wrong analogy. Phone service is the correct one. It’s something basically everyone uses. You should be able to call or group call anyone you want. The phone company can’t claim they own the phone lines so they decide which content can be discussed or who is allowed to make a phone call. It’s that simple.
- exporectomy 5y agoWhenever someone proposes a simple solution to a social or political problem that nobody can agree on, and says "It's that simple", they're marking themselves as not understanding what they're talking about while arrogantly pretending they do. It's automatically not simple or it wouldn't even be in the news. You certainly aren't the authority on it.
- misja111 5y agoSo you would be ok with a phone company that doesn't allow certains groups of people to make phone calls? For instance, people whose political views it doesn't agree with? Or even worse, people with certain ethnical backgrounds? Of course now you might say, if such a phone company existed, those people who were denied service could just choose another one. But if this company would be the one dominating the market, this would mean they couldn't reach all the people they would want to anymore. This is the analogy with Facebook.