4 ms·

The US is going to start looking like China if big companies can ban you for doing anything they don't like. I'm usually in favor of companies deciding what th

The US is going to start looking like China if big companies can ban you for doing anything they don't like. I'm usually in favor of companies deciding what they want to do and how they want to price things - but anything related to general discrimination or suppressing free speech seems like a VERY slippery slope that companies shouldn't be allowed to do. There's already a lot of companies sueing people for leaving bad reviews. This seems completely dystopian. Imagine if you say anything bad about Apple and you can't message iPhone users anymore. If you say anything bad about Google, you can't use any website with Analytics. If you say anything bad about Comcast, you have to sell your house and move to get Internet, etc. This isn't a world I want to live in.

colpabar 4y ago
Well thats A-OK because the good guys are in charge here! We love our corporations and when they work with government agencies we love them even more. You’d have to be some kind of nazi to have a problem with that.
kmlx 4y ago
how is this company “generally discriminating” or “suppressing free speech”? i feel like your comment is about the right to deny service more than the use of face recognition.
- onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
  The company is denying service BECAUSE the customer is involved in a lawsuit. If you don't think that's suppression of free speech, then I guess it's subjective - but I disagree.
  - kmlx 4y ago
    the government is not involved here so there is no free speech issue. if someone bans me from MSG or twitter free speech has nothing to do with it.
    - LarryMullins 4y ago
      You mean it's not a First Amendment issue. Free speech is a broader principle about how a society should conduct itself, not merely a set of restrictions for governments.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        I like this framework for discussing free speech. https://popehat.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-free-speech-pedantry https://popehat.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-free-speech-ped... >there are three distinct categories of free speech values: free speech rights, free speech culture, and decency of speech.
  - marssaxman 4y ago
    > The company is denying service BECAUSE the customer is involved in a lawsuit. Why should that be unreasonable? Seems a little cheeky to sue someone and expect them to keep on entertaining you. > If you don't think that's suppression of free speech Whose speech is being suppressed? The Rockettes are free to sing, the lawyer is free to complain about missing the show, and the venue is free to explain their point of view. Everybody involved appears to be speaking freely.
    - Folcon 4y ago
      The lawyer who's organisation is involved in a case, is being denied service. Specifically, the lawyer being denied service is a personal injury lawyer, who works for the law firm who is representing people suing the company. So they work in an entirely different branch of the law firm, but are being denied service because their firm is representing someone who is suing the company. I mean do you prefer the world where you are punished for the actions of 3rd parties who are semantically or logically connected to you? Irrespective of the fundamental issues of this case, this seems a bit of an overreach.
      - marssaxman 4y ago
        If I were taking this at all seriously, I suppose I would have to agree with you. The whole thing just seems frivolous, and both parties entirely unsympathetic; a terrible case for setting any precedent we should care about.
    - welshwelsh 4y ago
      A publicly traded corporation is not "someone." They don't have points of view or the ability to speak. In many ways, they are far more similar to government institutions than to private citizens, and should be treated as such whenever free speech is concerned. The customer banned from MSG is not involved in the lawsuit, but even if they were, we shouldn't allow corporations to retaliate against people by banning them from public venues.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- sslayer 4y ago
  Primarily Democratic backed company that doesn't like Republicans and don't want to provide them service? Boom excluded - "We reserve the right to refuse you service!". And honestly with as much data that has been collected they could legally do it on a data point that's not tied to your politics(ie misdemeanors, felonies, court cases, etc). It's absolutely going to be discriminatory, and they can hide it in the algorithms. And, not to pick on Democrats this is possible for any group, or individual to clearly point at any other group/individual. This is just the start, but it might be the actual end of individual expression without repercussions.
  - dtgriscom 4y ago
    Why is "Democrat vs Republican" relevant here, except as flamebait?
    - commandlinefan 4y ago
      Not OP, but likely because Democrats have been doing this to Republicans online for the last 20 years or so (and almost never the other way around), so it's likely that we'll see the same behavior escape into the real world now that it's possible.
      - Retric 4y ago
        Hardly, the culture wars have been hitting in both directions for decades. The extreme right has been less successful at growing huge online companies, but giant companies can’t afford to kick off 1/2 their customers. It’s really smaller website that can kick people off without consequences.
      - LarryMullins 4y ago
        I've seen a video showing something like this, of a shop clerk refusing service to a customer because he had a maga hat (or some other sort of trump paraphernalia, I don't recall exactly.) As far as I know, that was legal. But the clerk did lose his job when his boss found out.
      - 4y ago
- qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
  Say what you want, but they never would let us starve..
bombcar 4y ago
We’re like three terms of use updates and a bad decision from Tesla disabling your car’s charging for a day because you got a warning on Twitter.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  Internet enabled cars were never a good idea. I dread the day I have to give up my mid-00s Honda and replace it with something new, since everything seems loaded with phone-home spyware and killswitches now.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    Yeah, it’s becoming more and more obvious that keeping a vehicle SOMEWHERE that doesn’t connect to the internet is going to be important in the future - even if it’s just a bike or motorcycle or M32A2.
    - Kon-Peki 4y ago
      A ton of recent, modern, safe, efficient, and reliable cars lost internet connectivity in the last year. https://www.toyota.com/audio-multimedia/support/3g-faq/ https://www.toyota.com/audio-multimedia/support/3g-faq/ https://www.subaru.com/support/3g-network-retirement.html https://www.subaru.com/support/3g-network-retirement.html Etc.
  - sandgiant 4y ago
    I have a VW from 2019. I think it's the last generation to only have Bluetooth connectivity. Still, every time I talk to an official VW employee they ask me to install their app and update the car firmware, so they can spy on me. I politely refuse. I'm sure we'll figure out the regulation sooner or later, but for now it looks like things will get worse before they get better.
    - mysterydip 4y ago
      Could they bundle it with some safety recall so it's a mandatory update (or else warranty void, insurance says you're at fault, etc)?
commandlinefan 4y ago
> The US is going to start looking like China if big companies can ban you for doing anything they don't like This sounds very similar to concerns around social media platforms banning users arbitrarily (usually ideologically).
- Scoundreller 4y ago
  Or not banning users regardless of what they did if they are popular enough.
notwokeno 4y ago
I say let them. It will make people weary of big companies and value community based solutions instead which are much harder to just buy out or corrupt. You're seeing this play out with Twitter vs Mastodon right now for example.

colpabar 4y ago

Well thats A-OK because the good guys are in charge here! We love our corporations and when they work with government agencies we love them even more. You’d have to be some kind of nazi to have a problem with that.

kmlx 4y ago

how is this company “generally discriminating” or “suppressing free speech”? i feel like your comment is about the right to deny service more than the use of face recognition.

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
The company is denying service BECAUSE the customer is involved in a lawsuit. If you don't think that's suppression of free speech, then I guess it's subjective - but I disagree.
- kmlx 4y ago
  the government is not involved here so there is no free speech issue. if someone bans me from MSG or twitter free speech has nothing to do with it.
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    You mean it's not a First Amendment issue. Free speech is a broader principle about how a society should conduct itself, not merely a set of restrictions for governments.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      I like this framework for discussing free speech. https://popehat.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-free-speech-pedantry https://popehat.substack.com/p/in-defense-of-free-speech-ped... >there are three distinct categories of free speech values: free speech rights, free speech culture, and decency of speech.
- marssaxman 4y ago
  > The company is denying service BECAUSE the customer is involved in a lawsuit. Why should that be unreasonable? Seems a little cheeky to sue someone and expect them to keep on entertaining you. > If you don't think that's suppression of free speech Whose speech is being suppressed? The Rockettes are free to sing, the lawyer is free to complain about missing the show, and the venue is free to explain their point of view. Everybody involved appears to be speaking freely.
  - Folcon 4y ago
    The lawyer who's organisation is involved in a case, is being denied service. Specifically, the lawyer being denied service is a personal injury lawyer, who works for the law firm who is representing people suing the company. So they work in an entirely different branch of the law firm, but are being denied service because their firm is representing someone who is suing the company. I mean do you prefer the world where you are punished for the actions of 3rd parties who are semantically or logically connected to you? Irrespective of the fundamental issues of this case, this seems a bit of an overreach.
    - marssaxman 4y ago
      If I were taking this at all seriously, I suppose I would have to agree with you. The whole thing just seems frivolous, and both parties entirely unsympathetic; a terrible case for setting any precedent we should care about.
  - welshwelsh 4y ago
    A publicly traded corporation is not "someone." They don't have points of view or the ability to speak. In many ways, they are far more similar to government institutions than to private citizens, and should be treated as such whenever free speech is concerned. The customer banned from MSG is not involved in the lawsuit, but even if they were, we shouldn't allow corporations to retaliate against people by banning them from public venues.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
sslayer 4y ago
Primarily Democratic backed company that doesn't like Republicans and don't want to provide them service? Boom excluded - "We reserve the right to refuse you service!". And honestly with as much data that has been collected they could legally do it on a data point that's not tied to your politics(ie misdemeanors, felonies, court cases, etc). It's absolutely going to be discriminatory, and they can hide it in the algorithms. And, not to pick on Democrats this is possible for any group, or individual to clearly point at any other group/individual. This is just the start, but it might be the actual end of individual expression without repercussions.
- dtgriscom 4y ago
  Why is "Democrat vs Republican" relevant here, except as flamebait?
  - commandlinefan 4y ago
    Not OP, but likely because Democrats have been doing this to Republicans online for the last 20 years or so (and almost never the other way around), so it's likely that we'll see the same behavior escape into the real world now that it's possible.
    - Retric 4y ago
      Hardly, the culture wars have been hitting in both directions for decades. The extreme right has been less successful at growing huge online companies, but giant companies can’t afford to kick off 1/2 their customers. It’s really smaller website that can kick people off without consequences.
    - LarryMullins 4y ago
      I've seen a video showing something like this, of a shop clerk refusing service to a customer because he had a maga hat (or some other sort of trump paraphernalia, I don't recall exactly.) As far as I know, that was legal. But the clerk did lose his job when his boss found out.
    - 4y ago
qikInNdOutReply 4y ago
Say what you want, but they never would let us starve..

bombcar 4y ago

We’re like three terms of use updates and a bad decision from Tesla disabling your car’s charging for a day because you got a warning on Twitter.

LarryMullins 4y ago
Internet enabled cars were never a good idea. I dread the day I have to give up my mid-00s Honda and replace it with something new, since everything seems loaded with phone-home spyware and killswitches now.
- bombcar 4y ago
  Yeah, it’s becoming more and more obvious that keeping a vehicle SOMEWHERE that doesn’t connect to the internet is going to be important in the future - even if it’s just a bike or motorcycle or M32A2.
  - Kon-Peki 4y ago
    A ton of recent, modern, safe, efficient, and reliable cars lost internet connectivity in the last year. https://www.toyota.com/audio-multimedia/support/3g-faq/ https://www.toyota.com/audio-multimedia/support/3g-faq/ https://www.subaru.com/support/3g-network-retirement.html https://www.subaru.com/support/3g-network-retirement.html Etc.
- sandgiant 4y ago
  I have a VW from 2019. I think it's the last generation to only have Bluetooth connectivity. Still, every time I talk to an official VW employee they ask me to install their app and update the car firmware, so they can spy on me. I politely refuse. I'm sure we'll figure out the regulation sooner or later, but for now it looks like things will get worse before they get better.
  - mysterydip 4y ago
    Could they bundle it with some safety recall so it's a mandatory update (or else warranty void, insurance says you're at fault, etc)?

commandlinefan 4y ago

> The US is going to start looking like China if big companies can ban you for doing anything they don't like This sounds very similar to concerns around social media platforms banning users arbitrarily (usually ideologically).

Scoundreller 4y ago
Or not banning users regardless of what they did if they are popular enough.

notwokeno 4y ago

I say let them. It will make people weary of big companies and value community based solutions instead which are much harder to just buy out or corrupt. You're seeing this play out with Twitter vs Mastodon right now for example.