4 ms·
Absolutely true. Whoever is downvoting leave a comment to explain. Are we okay with banks discriminating against free speech but not against porn?
by sarabad2021 5y ago
Absolutely true. Whoever is downvoting leave a comment to explain. Are we okay with banks discriminating against free speech but not against porn?
- freddie_mercury 5y agoWhat is to explain? The article is an Opinion and not representative of The Guardian. It is written by Jillian C York, the author of Silicon Values: The Future of Free Speech Under Surveillance Capitalism. Trying to conflate this opinion piece with The Guardian itself is dumb and shows a failure to understand what an Opinion is.
- throwjd764glug 5y agoSo the Guardian also has a comparable number of Opinion pieces decrying the financial censorship of sites like amren.com? Since, as you claim, what they choose to publish under Opinion is completely unrelated to their ideals.
- jonathanstrange 5y agoWhat's your point? That someone at the Guardian does not share your personal opinion? As for me, I'm not okay with either banks discriminating against free speech and banks discriminating against porn. For example, I was vigorously against banks blocking Wikileaks payments. Therefore, I'm fine with the Guardian article.
- gadders 5y agoWhat about banning Proud Boy accounts or Gab/Andrew Torba?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- ghomrassen 5y agocrickets
- kar5pt 5y agoThat's an absurd false dichotomy. We don't need to choose between being okay with banks discriminating in all circumstances and discriminating in no circumstances. If you support banks serving the Proud Biys are you okay with them serving Jihadi terrorist groups and autocratic dictators? Porn isn't trying to establish a white ethnostate.
- inkblotuniverse 5y agoI'm fine with them serving jihadis so long as they serve the counter-jihadis!
- gadders 5y agoI think you are drawing a false equivalence between the Proud Boys and jihadi terrorist groups. A better comparison would be between Proud Boys and members of Antifa.