4 ms·

Huh? Don’t companies have the freedom to choose who they do business with? What exactly is “leftist takeover” about not hosting a website that’s used to spy o

Huh? Don’t companies have the freedom to choose who they do business with? What exactly is “leftist takeover” about not hosting a website that’s used to spy on and report citizens for “crimes”? This is something I expect to see in an authoritarian country. Not the United States. It’s something I expect from Big Government invading people’s lives. What’s next? Maybe a “leftist” state will create a site like this for reporting gun owners? Maybe you can start reporting people who drive from California to another state to purchase 30 rd mags instead of what’s legally allowed in California? Or better yet maybe you just don’t like the 2nd Amendment neighbors you have so you anonymously report them. What’s the worst that could happen? Maybe the police show up and make that person’s life a living hell. Nothing like passive aggressive SWATing. You can quickly see how this spirals out of control. This website is like the exact opposite of what we need in the United States. It’s the kind of thing communist countries do.

pixl97 5y ago
"Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the communist party" Don't forget that even in the US that we dance on the knifes edge of authoritarianism where neighbors narc on neighbors all the time.
- ericmay 5y ago
  Yea… plus honestly it’s just so un-American. Is this how we resolve problems? It’s gross. My conservative friends (truly friends) would you rather confront someone in an honorable way to their face, or report someone anonymously on the Internet to the government. Which of these approaches really align with your own beliefs about resolving problems? If someone backed into your truck or something are you going to work it out like gentleman/woman or would you not talk to them and sit on your phone and report them to the police anonymously? Seriously. Face your accuser and all that.
  - jaldhar 5y ago
    I agree with you on this specific issue but may I point out it isn’t really a new thing. For instance, every police car in my town and probably yours has a phone number you can anonymously call if you have information concerning a crime investigation. There is a number to call to anonymously report unsafe conditions on building sites. Another one lets you anonymously report unsanitary conditions in restaurants (including recently if they are not following mask policy.). And so on for illegal dumping, animal cruelty etc. The danger is that the anonymity will be used by disgruntled people to make false accusations or get revenge instead of only by civic minded citizens trying to improve society but this is a danger in all the examples above not just the abortion one.
    - ericmay 5y ago
      I get what you're saying, but I do think this is specifically different. The actions you mention, such as illegal dumping are reporting harm caused to another against their will. Or in the case of animal cruelty, it's an action against a helpless creature. They are kind of like branches on the hierarchy of murder or theft. I think the unsanitary conditions is more similar to violence or misrepresentation so I don't see it as too different. The mask thing I think is a little more controversial and could be argued probably. But in all of these cases it seems that there is a dispute between an injured party and the injuring party. You'd have to argue that a fetus is an injured party and that a physician and the mother are injuring the fetus against its will. Some probably will. I won't.
notahacker 5y ago
> What's the worst that could happen Given the precedent set by the Supreme Court, probably every gun owner and even people whose politics are deemed as "aiding and abetting" gun ownership being sued into bankruptcy by unrelated third parties, because the Supreme Court position has made it clear that a state setting civil penalties for something it wishes it could ban and permitting private bounty hunters to collect couldn't possibly be infringing on anyones' constitutional rights Edit: anyone want to tell me how a law constructed to circumvent constitutional restrictions on the state banning something by allowing them to make it a civil offence unrelated third parties can sue for doesn't set a precedent that it would be OK for a state with different political priorities to try this by setting civil penalties for gun ownership or unacceptable speech?
- amanaplanacanal 5y ago
  The Supreme court hasn’t actually ruled on whether this is constitutional or not, this was just a preliminary injunction.
- MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  I am 100% for this tactic being applied against gun owners. Not because I am against all gun ownership, or want gun owners to suffer, but because it's consistent with the law in Texas and there's not a snowball's chance in hell that the 5 justices who voted to allow the law to stay in place for now would have been fine with the gun law.
unclebucknasty 5y ago
All of this. That's the problem with conflating everything to freedom of speech, then forgetting its exceptions while prioritizing it over every other right. You end up with these perversions wherein the right to violate someone else's Constitutional rights is just "speech".

pixl97 5y ago

"Are you, or have you ever been, a member of the communist party" Don't forget that even in the US that we dance on the knifes edge of authoritarianism where neighbors narc on neighbors all the time.

ericmay 5y ago
Yea… plus honestly it’s just so un-American. Is this how we resolve problems? It’s gross. My conservative friends (truly friends) would you rather confront someone in an honorable way to their face, or report someone anonymously on the Internet to the government. Which of these approaches really align with your own beliefs about resolving problems? If someone backed into your truck or something are you going to work it out like gentleman/woman or would you not talk to them and sit on your phone and report them to the police anonymously? Seriously. Face your accuser and all that.
- jaldhar 5y ago
  I agree with you on this specific issue but may I point out it isn’t really a new thing. For instance, every police car in my town and probably yours has a phone number you can anonymously call if you have information concerning a crime investigation. There is a number to call to anonymously report unsafe conditions on building sites. Another one lets you anonymously report unsanitary conditions in restaurants (including recently if they are not following mask policy.). And so on for illegal dumping, animal cruelty etc. The danger is that the anonymity will be used by disgruntled people to make false accusations or get revenge instead of only by civic minded citizens trying to improve society but this is a danger in all the examples above not just the abortion one.
  - ericmay 5y ago
    I get what you're saying, but I do think this is specifically different. The actions you mention, such as illegal dumping are reporting harm caused to another against their will. Or in the case of animal cruelty, it's an action against a helpless creature. They are kind of like branches on the hierarchy of murder or theft. I think the unsanitary conditions is more similar to violence or misrepresentation so I don't see it as too different. The mask thing I think is a little more controversial and could be argued probably. But in all of these cases it seems that there is a dispute between an injured party and the injuring party. You'd have to argue that a fetus is an injured party and that a physician and the mother are injuring the fetus against its will. Some probably will. I won't.

notahacker 5y ago

> What's the worst that could happen Given the precedent set by the Supreme Court, probably every gun owner and even people whose politics are deemed as "aiding and abetting" gun ownership being sued into bankruptcy by unrelated third parties, because the Supreme Court position has made it clear that a state setting civil penalties for something it wishes it could ban and permitting private bounty hunters to collect couldn't possibly be infringing on anyones' constitutional rights Edit: anyone want to tell me how a law constructed to circumvent constitutional restrictions on the state banning something by allowing them to make it a civil offence unrelated third parties can sue for doesn't set a precedent that it would be OK for a state with different political priorities to try this by setting civil penalties for gun ownership or unacceptable speech?

amanaplanacanal 5y ago
The Supreme court hasn’t actually ruled on whether this is constitutional or not, this was just a preliminary injunction.
MisterBastahrd 5y ago
I am 100% for this tactic being applied against gun owners. Not because I am against all gun ownership, or want gun owners to suffer, but because it's consistent with the law in Texas and there's not a snowball's chance in hell that the 5 justices who voted to allow the law to stay in place for now would have been fine with the gun law.

unclebucknasty 5y ago

All of this. That's the problem with conflating everything to freedom of speech, then forgetting its exceptions while prioritizing it over every other right. You end up with these perversions wherein the right to violate someone else's Constitutional rights is just "speech".