9 ms·

The problem there is that the terms are often ambiguous, and thus an explanation of how the terms were violated will be ambiguous. "Some sort of legislation ...

The problem there is that the terms are often ambiguous, and thus an explanation of how the terms were violated will be ambiguous. "Some sort of legislation ... to force companies to explain decisions ..." will be useless unless the terms are unambiguous. Look for example at youtube where there is a lot of subjective wiggle room in their definition of acceptable content. Let's face it, the decisions of Paypal and others (Youtube, Twitter, etc) when deciding who stays and who goes on its platform are ideologically and politically motivated. The leaders of these companies are basing their decisions on their own political leanings. And in the vast majority of cases like the Daily Sceptic where a user or service is being deplatformed, the reason is idealogical (rather than a case where the user is for example defrauding the platform or service provider). I believe a better solution would be for the government to penalize companies that are repressive to the rights granted to us in the bill of rights (for example free speech). This whole "but it is a private company who gets to dictate what speech they want and don't want on their site" needs to go out the window. If a company wants to operate within the US, it needs to respect the rights of the country's population (rather than define its own set of rights).

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
markdown 4y ago
You can't force me to host your content if I don't like your content. I don't care what rights you think you have. It's my server and I decide what goes on it.
- dougabug 4y ago
  Exactly so. Your decision not to host certain content you find odious is a valid exercise of your freedom of speech, as well as your freedom of association.
- FpUser 4y ago
  There are special rules for a public companies. I do not see any reason why dominant platforms should not be prevented from terminating customer's accounts for anything that is legal. Alternatively we would have a society which democratic by name but where your life is controlled by few big corporations. Looks like we are heading there anyways.
  - mynameisvlad 4y ago
    Private corporations are not the government. We’ve done fine with the current rights and freedoms, applied to governments only, for the past 200 years. I think we’ll manage for another few.
    - FpUser 4y ago
      >"Private corporations are not the government." With all lobbying power? Yeah sure. Also publicly traded companies that are also near monopolies are not really "private companies". They have way too much power over people's lives. >"We’ve done fine with the current rights and freedoms" No we have not and what rights we have are deteriorating
      - mynameisvlad 4y ago
        > With all lobbying power? Yeah sure. Also publicly traded companies that are also near monopolies are not really "private companies". They have way too much power over people's lives. None of that makes them the government or makes the rights and freedoms associated with the BoR applicable to them. They are also not a monopoly or anywhere near one. Many payment processors exist, as evidenced by the fact that literally even in the article itself the author mentions that any non-PayPal subscription is still active. Or the comment which shows a brand new one that seems to be targeted towards “free speech bastions” like this. > No we have not and what rights we have are deteriorating Source. Especially on the latter, which you clearly see this as.
  - dougabug 4y ago
    The established remedy for abusive monopolies is enforcement of antitrust laws.
- codedokode 4y ago
  I am sure that you are wrong. For example, imagine if Facebook would promote pro-Russian content and hide pro-Ukranian or pro-NATO content in the newsfeed. Perfectly legal, but how long they will be able to pull it? I don't think it will be more than 1 or 2 weeks. So it is your server only as long as you ban outcasts like 8chan and don't cross paths with people in the power.
- Gigachad 4y ago
  When you provide that server out as a service, those rights change. Like how owing a house doesn’t give you unlimited rights when you decide to rent it out.
mynameisvlad 4y ago
Freedoms only apply to governments. Period. On purpose. It’s convenient that you preempted the argument that kills your entire comment, you made everyone else’s job easier. The fact that private businesses can choose who to do business with, without stepping on these freedoms like free speech is a feature, not a bug. You cannot force someone to agree with your speech. You especially cannot force a business to deal with you if they don’t want to.
- alldayeveryday 4y ago
  > Freedoms only apply to governments. Period. On purpose > It’s convenient that you preempted the argument that kills your entire comment, you made everyone else’s job easier. Ironic, you just did the thing you accused me of. Putting that aside, "You especially cannot force a business to deal with you if they don’t want to" is where I disagree with you. In the case of a bakery, I agree with you. In the case of what could be classified as a public utility, such as a payment system, is where I disagree with you. Certain services which have monopolistic or near monopolistic positions and being necessary to participate in the economy (paypal) or society (facebook) should not be in the business of policing speech. And it is the governments role in making sure this is the case (as the collective muscle of the people to ensure their rights are maintained). We've been indoctrinated for decades to fear and limit the ability of the government to do as such, as well as indoctrinated for decades to place the rights of business interests above our own rights as citizens. I argue to break this position of slavery and place our rights first. Why shouldn't Paypal be forced to do business with me?
  - mynameisvlad 4y ago
    PayPal is not a public utility, as much as you’d want it to be one. Until the government determines it is one, then the rules of public utilities don’t apply. Once again, regardless how much you wish it were so. It shouldn’t be forced to do business with you because it is a private business and not the government. It also is nowhere near a monopoly. Plenty of payment processors exist. Another comment here literally talks about new ones springing up. It is equivalent to the bakery store in your example.
beej71 4y ago
> This whole "but it is a private company who gets to dictate what speech they want and don't want on their site" needs to go out the window. But deciding what and what not to publish on your own website is protected by the First Amendment, is it not?
- melagonster 4y ago
  but it is not a forum, PayPal more like bank, how can author of this article put any content on PayPal's website?
  - beej71 4y ago
    This is a valid question, and I was responding to another more speech oriented question earlier and I think got my signals crossed. So in this case, I suppose the question is when must a business serve a customer they don't want? Frankly, I'd like to see PayPal more heavily regulated for things like this, since I doubt they'll take action on their own.
- egwynn 4y ago
  The first amendment is mostly about what the US government can/can’t do, and even then it’s not 100% protection.
  - beej71 4y ago
    I'll rephrase: the First Amendment generally prohibits the government from dictating what you can or cannot serve from your webserver, does it not?
- origin_path 4y ago
  Money transmitters don't have much discretion over their customer list. There are rules (PATRIOT Act AML provisions) that punish their executives with jail time if they have customers who turn out to be criminals, even if said executives didn't know anything about that at the time. And in some countries like France there are laws saying everyone has a right to a bank account. The courts will force a bank to open an account if someone can't get an account due to de-platforming. It was used by the ex-bitcoin exchange MtGox in the past, I think.
astura 4y ago
>If a company wants to operate within the US, it needs to respect the rights of the country's population. Umm, the first amendment says nothing about "rights of the country's population," it is, specifically, a restriction on the types of laws Congress is allowed to make where "Congress" has been interrupted broadly to include state and local legislative bodies. >Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It's not a positive right, it's written, specifically, to be a restriction of government.
scarface74 4y ago
Are you also against Truth Social setting it’s own policies? Should a Christian website be forced to allow comments that go against its ideals? Would you want the government telling you what to publish on your own website? If the government wants a platform that allows anyone to post anything, it’s free to create its own platform.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

markdown 4y ago

You can't force me to host your content if I don't like your content. I don't care what rights you think you have. It's my server and I decide what goes on it.

dougabug 4y ago
Exactly so. Your decision not to host certain content you find odious is a valid exercise of your freedom of speech, as well as your freedom of association.
FpUser 4y ago
There are special rules for a public companies. I do not see any reason why dominant platforms should not be prevented from terminating customer's accounts for anything that is legal. Alternatively we would have a society which democratic by name but where your life is controlled by few big corporations. Looks like we are heading there anyways.
- mynameisvlad 4y ago
  Private corporations are not the government. We’ve done fine with the current rights and freedoms, applied to governments only, for the past 200 years. I think we’ll manage for another few.
  - FpUser 4y ago
    >"Private corporations are not the government." With all lobbying power? Yeah sure. Also publicly traded companies that are also near monopolies are not really "private companies". They have way too much power over people's lives. >"We’ve done fine with the current rights and freedoms" No we have not and what rights we have are deteriorating
    - mynameisvlad 4y ago
      > With all lobbying power? Yeah sure. Also publicly traded companies that are also near monopolies are not really "private companies". They have way too much power over people's lives. None of that makes them the government or makes the rights and freedoms associated with the BoR applicable to them. They are also not a monopoly or anywhere near one. Many payment processors exist, as evidenced by the fact that literally even in the article itself the author mentions that any non-PayPal subscription is still active. Or the comment which shows a brand new one that seems to be targeted towards “free speech bastions” like this. > No we have not and what rights we have are deteriorating Source. Especially on the latter, which you clearly see this as.
- dougabug 4y ago
  The established remedy for abusive monopolies is enforcement of antitrust laws.
codedokode 4y ago
I am sure that you are wrong. For example, imagine if Facebook would promote pro-Russian content and hide pro-Ukranian or pro-NATO content in the newsfeed. Perfectly legal, but how long they will be able to pull it? I don't think it will be more than 1 or 2 weeks. So it is your server only as long as you ban outcasts like 8chan and don't cross paths with people in the power.
Gigachad 4y ago
When you provide that server out as a service, those rights change. Like how owing a house doesn’t give you unlimited rights when you decide to rent it out.

mynameisvlad 4y ago

Freedoms only apply to governments. Period. On purpose. It’s convenient that you preempted the argument that kills your entire comment, you made everyone else’s job easier. The fact that private businesses can choose who to do business with, without stepping on these freedoms like free speech is a feature, not a bug. You cannot force someone to agree with your speech. You especially cannot force a business to deal with you if they don’t want to.

alldayeveryday 4y ago
> Freedoms only apply to governments. Period. On purpose > It’s convenient that you preempted the argument that kills your entire comment, you made everyone else’s job easier. Ironic, you just did the thing you accused me of. Putting that aside, "You especially cannot force a business to deal with you if they don’t want to" is where I disagree with you. In the case of a bakery, I agree with you. In the case of what could be classified as a public utility, such as a payment system, is where I disagree with you. Certain services which have monopolistic or near monopolistic positions and being necessary to participate in the economy (paypal) or society (facebook) should not be in the business of policing speech. And it is the governments role in making sure this is the case (as the collective muscle of the people to ensure their rights are maintained). We've been indoctrinated for decades to fear and limit the ability of the government to do as such, as well as indoctrinated for decades to place the rights of business interests above our own rights as citizens. I argue to break this position of slavery and place our rights first. Why shouldn't Paypal be forced to do business with me?
- mynameisvlad 4y ago
  PayPal is not a public utility, as much as you’d want it to be one. Until the government determines it is one, then the rules of public utilities don’t apply. Once again, regardless how much you wish it were so. It shouldn’t be forced to do business with you because it is a private business and not the government. It also is nowhere near a monopoly. Plenty of payment processors exist. Another comment here literally talks about new ones springing up. It is equivalent to the bakery store in your example.

beej71 4y ago

> This whole "but it is a private company who gets to dictate what speech they want and don't want on their site" needs to go out the window. But deciding what and what not to publish on your own website is protected by the First Amendment, is it not?

melagonster 4y ago
but it is not a forum, PayPal more like bank, how can author of this article put any content on PayPal's website?
- beej71 4y ago
  This is a valid question, and I was responding to another more speech oriented question earlier and I think got my signals crossed. So in this case, I suppose the question is when must a business serve a customer they don't want? Frankly, I'd like to see PayPal more heavily regulated for things like this, since I doubt they'll take action on their own.
egwynn 4y ago
The first amendment is mostly about what the US government can/can’t do, and even then it’s not 100% protection.
- beej71 4y ago
  I'll rephrase: the First Amendment generally prohibits the government from dictating what you can or cannot serve from your webserver, does it not?
origin_path 4y ago
Money transmitters don't have much discretion over their customer list. There are rules (PATRIOT Act AML provisions) that punish their executives with jail time if they have customers who turn out to be criminals, even if said executives didn't know anything about that at the time. And in some countries like France there are laws saying everyone has a right to a bank account. The courts will force a bank to open an account if someone can't get an account due to de-platforming. It was used by the ex-bitcoin exchange MtGox in the past, I think.

astura 4y ago

>If a company wants to operate within the US, it needs to respect the rights of the country's population. Umm, the first amendment says nothing about "rights of the country's population," it is, specifically, a restriction on the types of laws Congress is allowed to make where "Congress" has been interrupted broadly to include state and local legislative bodies. >Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It's not a positive right, it's written, specifically, to be a restriction of government.

scarface74 4y ago

Are you also against Truth Social setting it’s own policies? Should a Christian website be forced to allow comments that go against its ideals? Would you want the government telling you what to publish on your own website? If the government wants a platform that allows anyone to post anything, it’s free to create its own platform.