3 ms·

Everything that might be useful to a marginalized population should not automatically be used to rhetorically beat someone over the head in this sort of discuss

Everything that might be useful to a marginalized population should not automatically be used to rhetorically beat someone over the head in this sort of discussion. Humans rights pov to this were not remotely part of the discussion. If you have one you think is relevant to the discussion then introduce it. The way you have tried to do so here is in the tone of “I know you think you’re trying to help but clearly your attitude is part of the problem.” This might be acceptable if phone-hosted websites were already a well-known humanitarian & human rights issue and therefore marginalization a potential problem. As it stand though it just seems like you’re twisting the meaning of “edge case” into something that it is not.

soulofmischief 3y ago
The issue is that we must enforce these rights within the market, or we circumvent law. "Freedom of speech" doesn't matter if the user can only choose from market participants which restrict speech. There is absolutely no guarantee that "the free market will sort things out" as so many believe. The only guarantee must come from corporate restrictions which enable individual freedoms. You could argue John Deere shouldn't be required to sell you a tractor which you can repair at home. But if you don't require that, they won't, and you've chosen to prioritize corporate needs over individual needs.