3 ms·
It’s not at all the same argument. The key difference is “$PROTECTED_CLASS”. It’s perfectly legal for a shop owner to refuse service to anyone as long as it’s n
by ViViDboarder 5y ago
It’s not at all the same argument. The key difference is “$PROTECTED_CLASS”. It’s perfectly legal for a shop owner to refuse service to anyone as long as it’s not based on a protected class. That should hold true for Facebook as well. If they censor people based on a protected attribute, such as sex, then they should be compelled to offer equal service. In any of these cases being discussed, they don’t relate to protected classes.
- ThrowawayR2 5y agoThat's a circular argument. The reason $PROTECTED_CLASS became a protected class is because people saw the unjustness of their treatment and agreed that they needed to be treated equally, backed up by the force of law. If you were placed in the year 1800, by your logic you'd be saying that $FUTURE_PROTECTED_CLASS doesn't need to be treated equally right now because they're not a protected class. Clearly, that's not valid. The unequal treatment is the problem; not being in a protected class is irrelevant to that.
- ViViDboarder 5y agoIt isn’t circular at all. A immutable class of person is different than a pice of content.