4 ms·
The “privately owned” argument is bad and frankly it’s disingenuous. Nobody making this argument believes that “privately owned” entities should be able to disc
by AbrahamParangi 4y ago
The “privately owned” argument is bad and frankly it’s disingenuous. Nobody making this argument believes that “privately owned” entities should be able to discriminate against racial minorities, sexual minorities, religious minorities, or any other intersectional group.
It is only their specific political opponents who are acceptable targets for discrimination.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- lesuorac 4y agoI think you missed read the previous poster so I'll repeat the important part of their post. > I'm all for them deciding to use it to chuck off those who want to use it for the explicit purpose of harming others, If your political identity is about harming others, then yes that poster thinks you should get booted from the internet. If your political identity is not about harming others then they're not talking about you or your political identity.
- triceratops 4y agoI'm tired of this comparison of discrimination against speech to discrimination against protected classes. Please learn the difference between the two. The person isn't being banned. Their activities are. This is legal, and always has been. Without it, someone could disrupt religious services with obscenity or blasphemy and there would be no recourse, to take just one example. The above is entirely unlike discrimination against people on the basis of race or sex or orientation or religion because those are unchangeable characteristics.