9 ms·

"Political ideology" really is the trojan horse here. Political ideology is not a protected class, whereas the others are. This bill is really about banning c

by jude- 5y ago

"Political ideology" really is the trojan horse here. Political ideology is not a protected class, whereas the others are. This bill is really about banning content moderation. Everything else is window dressing.

nitrogen 5y ago
Political ideology is not a protected class, whereas the others are. That's clearly a mistake of history. Political affiliation or non-affiliation really needs to be protected at the same level as religious affiliation or non-affiliation.
- jude- 5y ago
  [flagged]
  - andrew_ 5y ago
    That was a really fast manifestation of Godwin's Law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
    - jude- 5y ago
      So is there anything actually wrong with what I said? Also, here's Godwin himself on Godwin's Law, when talking about the alt-right folks who are now the backbone of the GOP: "By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with you." [1] https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/896884949634232320 https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/896884949634232320
      - threatofrain 5y ago
        > Also, politics isn't a religion. Your holding political beliefs is a choice you freely make.
        jude- 5y ago
        So being a Nazi -- or any kind of violent extremist -- isn't a choice? If it wasn't a choice for you then you have my sympathy, but I can assure you that is not a typical experience in the US.
        threatofrain 5y ago
        You were proposing a difference between religious and political beliefs, and you offered that you get to choose your political beliefs. Is that a distinction between political and religious beliefs? You think we can't choose our religious beliefs?
        jude- 5y ago
        > Is that a distinction between political and religious beliefs? I am sure you are more than capable of thinking of some, since they are pretty obvious. The biggest one that comes to mind is that political beliefs are not required to adhere to a dogma or a set of unfalsifiable superstitions. Also, they are much more fluid over generational timescales -- politics in the US today is vastly different than it was even 50 years ago. In addition, they are also much contextualized -- for example, your political behavior is a function of your local politics in addition to state and national politics. > You think we can't choose our religious beliefs? You can! But unlike religious beliefs, you can act on your political beliefs in secret via the ballot box, which frees you from the social consequences of doing so. Contrast this to religious beliefs, where people will notice what you do and do not practice, and potentially discriminate against you for it. The inescapability of religious practice (or its noted absence), and the prejudices that can come with it is why there are anti-discrimination laws for certain kinds of transactions necessary for you to thrive -- for example, housing discrimination based on religion is illegal, as is employer discrimination. But in no case does Twitter kicking you off impede your ability to hold and act upon either your political or religious beliefs, so no legal protection for your Twitter account is necessary. You are not being oppressed.
    - lalaland1125 5y ago
      Nazis would be the main people actually affected by these new rules though. Twitter/Facebook/etc don't ban most political affiliations. The only one that they really ban on sight is Nazis.
  - smabie 5y ago
    religious beliefs is a choice you make freely no? As are all beliefs
    - jude- 5y ago
      Maybe for you it is. But for many, adherence to religion isn't a free choice (or if it is, it requires overcoming a lifetime of indoctrination).
      - spurgu 5y ago
        You could argue the same for racism or nazis or whatever as well. It's not like someone suddenly wakes up one days and decides to go to nazi school. It requires indoctrination just as religion. As a side note, indoctrinations are quicker and more efficient when done younger.
        jude- 5y ago
        The psychological manipulations that religions put in place to keep you adhering to the faith through tough times do not apply to either Nazism or racism in general. Like, neither political ideology promises you eternal life or reincarnation after death, nor does either one promise you a divine reward if you are persecuted in this life for holding these beliefs. Neither say anything about divine punishment for non-believers, and neither offer divine rewards for proselytization. This is what makes religious indoctrination that much harder to shake off. If you truly believe that you will face divine and eternal punishment for becoming apostate, or will receive divine and eternal rewards for adhering to the faith, then you'd naturally take the latter path even if only out of your own self-interest. Breaking out of this mental model requires recognizing the psychological manipulation for what it is, despite having known no other mental framework. By contrast, racism and Nazism do not manipulate you this way. They instead appeal to your senses of grievance, entitlement, and resentment, in a way that enhances your self-esteem. While this can also be difficult to break away from, the psychological barriers for doing so are a lot lower -- like, you're not dealing with eternal consequences. But regardless, the topic at hand is whether or not religious or political discrimination are acceptable when it comes to using a platform like Twitter. I'd say "yes" in both cases -- Twitter isn't a vital service (compared to, say, housing, banking, or employment), and you not having a Twitter account does not inhibit your ability to hold and act on either your religious or political beliefs.
  - anonnyj 5y ago
    [flagged]
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > That's clearly a mistake of history. Political affiliation or non-affiliation really needs to be protected at the same level as religious affiliation or non-affiliation. Gender and race are social constructs. But they have some form. Political ideology has zero form. This is either a move to render protected classes useless or turn every decision in America into a California-style well of litigation.
  - dariusj18 5y ago
    However PC was comparing it to religious affiliation, which in some senses is quite comparable.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- Dig1t 5y ago
  In contrast with one of my sibling comments here, I agree with you. I think discriminating against people based on thoughts or beliefs is wrong, we should judge people based on their actions not their ideas. Minds can be changed and allowing a diversity of thought and discussion is ultimately a net benefit, even if some people end up being offended. Allowing discrimination based solely on ideas or words truly is a slippery slope.
  - jude- 5y ago
    I will gladly discriminate against Nazis, just as you would likely discriminate against folks whose personal creed included "user Dig1t belongs in a death camp." It's okay to apply standards to public spaces. Not every ideology deserves to be heard.
    - Dig1t 5y ago
      I think most people would gladly discriminate against Nazis in their personal lives. When it comes to official/legal policies though, like say renting an apartment to someone, I think it becomes problematic to start saying it's okay to discriminate against people with particular beliefs or ideas, even if those ideas are abhorrent to most people. There's a long list of reasons why allowing this kind of discrimination is a bad idea IMO, both idealogical and practical.
      - jude- 5y ago
        This proposed law (and this thread) is specifically about discrimination on private online platforms, not housing. Being kicked off of Twitter is nowhere near as life-threatening or disruptive to a person as getting kicked out of housing. The seriousness of the latter merits anti-discrimination laws, but the former is so frivolous that it's laughable that some people to feel entitled to use someone else's servers to spew their nonsense.
        nitrogen 5y ago
        Twitter is a very public platform -- you said so yourself in your previous comment. If we're willing to force a religious baker to provide services for a group they find abhorrent (however misguided they are about that), why aren't we also willing to force a much more consequential service provider to provide services for a group they find abhorrent (however right or wrong they are about that)?
zo1 5y ago
Side note. I still don't get why we're not making political ideology or belief a protected class. Protecting people for retribution and discrimination based on their voting is already a thing, so why stop there?
- jude- 5y ago
  What they're trying to do is make it so that private online platforms can't kick you off for your political ideology. This is an idiotic policy because it can and will be abused by extremists to violent ends at exorbitant cost to the platform. For example, if literal Nazis get kicked off the platform for organizing violent white power rallies, they would have standing to sue for discriminating against their political beliefs.

by jude- 5y ago

nitrogen 5y ago

Political ideology is not a protected class, whereas the others are. That's clearly a mistake of history. Political affiliation or non-affiliation really needs to be protected at the same level as religious affiliation or non-affiliation.

jude- 5y ago
[flagged]
- andrew_ 5y ago
  That was a really fast manifestation of Godwin's Law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
  - jude- 5y ago
    So is there anything actually wrong with what I said? Also, here's Godwin himself on Godwin's Law, when talking about the alt-right folks who are now the backbone of the GOP: "By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with you." [1] https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/896884949634232320 https://twitter.com/sfmnemonic/status/896884949634232320
    - threatofrain 5y ago
      > Also, politics isn't a religion. Your holding political beliefs is a choice you freely make.
      - jude- 5y ago
        So being a Nazi -- or any kind of violent extremist -- isn't a choice? If it wasn't a choice for you then you have my sympathy, but I can assure you that is not a typical experience in the US.
        threatofrain 5y ago
        You were proposing a difference between religious and political beliefs, and you offered that you get to choose your political beliefs. Is that a distinction between political and religious beliefs? You think we can't choose our religious beliefs?
        jude- 5y ago
        > Is that a distinction between political and religious beliefs? I am sure you are more than capable of thinking of some, since they are pretty obvious. The biggest one that comes to mind is that political beliefs are not required to adhere to a dogma or a set of unfalsifiable superstitions. Also, they are much more fluid over generational timescales -- politics in the US today is vastly different than it was even 50 years ago. In addition, they are also much contextualized -- for example, your political behavior is a function of your local politics in addition to state and national politics. > You think we can't choose our religious beliefs? You can! But unlike religious beliefs, you can act on your political beliefs in secret via the ballot box, which frees you from the social consequences of doing so. Contrast this to religious beliefs, where people will notice what you do and do not practice, and potentially discriminate against you for it. The inescapability of religious practice (or its noted absence), and the prejudices that can come with it is why there are anti-discrimination laws for certain kinds of transactions necessary for you to thrive -- for example, housing discrimination based on religion is illegal, as is employer discrimination. But in no case does Twitter kicking you off impede your ability to hold and act upon either your political or religious beliefs, so no legal protection for your Twitter account is necessary. You are not being oppressed.
  - lalaland1125 5y ago
    Nazis would be the main people actually affected by these new rules though. Twitter/Facebook/etc don't ban most political affiliations. The only one that they really ban on sight is Nazis.
- smabie 5y ago
  religious beliefs is a choice you make freely no? As are all beliefs
  - jude- 5y ago
    Maybe for you it is. But for many, adherence to religion isn't a free choice (or if it is, it requires overcoming a lifetime of indoctrination).
    - spurgu 5y ago
      You could argue the same for racism or nazis or whatever as well. It's not like someone suddenly wakes up one days and decides to go to nazi school. It requires indoctrination just as religion. As a side note, indoctrinations are quicker and more efficient when done younger.
      - jude- 5y ago
        The psychological manipulations that religions put in place to keep you adhering to the faith through tough times do not apply to either Nazism or racism in general. Like, neither political ideology promises you eternal life or reincarnation after death, nor does either one promise you a divine reward if you are persecuted in this life for holding these beliefs. Neither say anything about divine punishment for non-believers, and neither offer divine rewards for proselytization. This is what makes religious indoctrination that much harder to shake off. If you truly believe that you will face divine and eternal punishment for becoming apostate, or will receive divine and eternal rewards for adhering to the faith, then you'd naturally take the latter path even if only out of your own self-interest. Breaking out of this mental model requires recognizing the psychological manipulation for what it is, despite having known no other mental framework. By contrast, racism and Nazism do not manipulate you this way. They instead appeal to your senses of grievance, entitlement, and resentment, in a way that enhances your self-esteem. While this can also be difficult to break away from, the psychological barriers for doing so are a lot lower -- like, you're not dealing with eternal consequences. But regardless, the topic at hand is whether or not religious or political discrimination are acceptable when it comes to using a platform like Twitter. I'd say "yes" in both cases -- Twitter isn't a vital service (compared to, say, housing, banking, or employment), and you not having a Twitter account does not inhibit your ability to hold and act on either your religious or political beliefs.
- anonnyj 5y ago
  [flagged]
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> That's clearly a mistake of history. Political affiliation or non-affiliation really needs to be protected at the same level as religious affiliation or non-affiliation. Gender and race are social constructs. But they have some form. Political ideology has zero form. This is either a move to render protected classes useless or turn every decision in America into a California-style well of litigation.
- dariusj18 5y ago
  However PC was comparing it to religious affiliation, which in some senses is quite comparable.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
Dig1t 5y ago
In contrast with one of my sibling comments here, I agree with you. I think discriminating against people based on thoughts or beliefs is wrong, we should judge people based on their actions not their ideas. Minds can be changed and allowing a diversity of thought and discussion is ultimately a net benefit, even if some people end up being offended. Allowing discrimination based solely on ideas or words truly is a slippery slope.
- jude- 5y ago
  I will gladly discriminate against Nazis, just as you would likely discriminate against folks whose personal creed included "user Dig1t belongs in a death camp." It's okay to apply standards to public spaces. Not every ideology deserves to be heard.
  - Dig1t 5y ago
    I think most people would gladly discriminate against Nazis in their personal lives. When it comes to official/legal policies though, like say renting an apartment to someone, I think it becomes problematic to start saying it's okay to discriminate against people with particular beliefs or ideas, even if those ideas are abhorrent to most people. There's a long list of reasons why allowing this kind of discrimination is a bad idea IMO, both idealogical and practical.
    - jude- 5y ago
      This proposed law (and this thread) is specifically about discrimination on private online platforms, not housing. Being kicked off of Twitter is nowhere near as life-threatening or disruptive to a person as getting kicked out of housing. The seriousness of the latter merits anti-discrimination laws, but the former is so frivolous that it's laughable that some people to feel entitled to use someone else's servers to spew their nonsense.
      - nitrogen 5y ago
        Twitter is a very public platform -- you said so yourself in your previous comment. If we're willing to force a religious baker to provide services for a group they find abhorrent (however misguided they are about that), why aren't we also willing to force a much more consequential service provider to provide services for a group they find abhorrent (however right or wrong they are about that)?

zo1 5y ago

Side note. I still don't get why we're not making political ideology or belief a protected class. Protecting people for retribution and discrimination based on their voting is already a thing, so why stop there?

jude- 5y ago
What they're trying to do is make it so that private online platforms can't kick you off for your political ideology. This is an idiotic policy because it can and will be abused by extremists to violent ends at exorbitant cost to the platform. For example, if literal Nazis get kicked off the platform for organizing violent white power rallies, they would have standing to sue for discriminating against their political beliefs.