3 ms·

My solution would probably be to encourage societal shame upon the people begging companies to become arbiters of morality. Companies generally don't care enoug

My solution would probably be to encourage societal shame upon the people begging companies to become arbiters of morality. Companies generally don't care enough about these things unless some moral crusade comes along and they kneejerk do whatever they are being brigaded to do. It happened with Cloudflare in this article.

lovich 3y ago
So use the same techniques you’re decrying? If you’re suggestion for a moral quandary is to fight fire with fire then most people are going to choose the side they find more morally “good” and you’re going to find that free speech gets limited more and more as you hold up groups like kiwi farms as someone to protect from non government infrastructure and services. You’re not solving the fundamental mismatch between letting people/orgs do as they please with their property and simultaneously wanting to let other private actors do as they please on the same property. “Free Speech” as a concept only aligns with “Free Speech” as a right when it comes to interactions between the government and private actors. It doesn’t line up with private-private interactions because you are inherently infringing on others rights when you want to use their property in a way they don’t want it to be used
- sickofparadox 3y ago
  It's not the techniques I am against, mass protest or popular action are both time-tested foundations of modern democracy. I am against people demanding that companies be exact mirrors of their morality, and that they only associate with those within their specific societal whitelist. Edit: In fact, there are many things that I think should not be illegal but should be socially shameful for people to do.
  - lovich 3y ago
    I don’t get what you’re complaining about then. Social pressure is shaming people into not doing actions like host the type of content that kiwifarms produces. I can’t come to any interpretation other than you’re just mad that your camp of ideals lost in the public sphere of ideas.
    - sickofparadox 3y ago
      >I am against people demanding that companies be exact mirrors of their morality, and that they only associate with those within their specific societal whitelist.
- DetroitThrow 3y ago
  > So use the same techniques you’re decrying? ..But who cancels the, err, cancel-ers? Jokes aside, I'm always surprised by people who manage to conflate "freedom of speech" rights with the idea all speech should be given every single megaphone that exists for every other type of speech. Yes, the government shouldn't hunt you down for using racial slurs on your homestead far away from society, but society shouldn't have to give people who hurl racial slurs their primetime news slots. It's usually much easier for normal people to reason about NBC and a racist than the slightly more abstracted and much more online idea of "[private internet infrastructure] should always be made available for every person, because speech!!"
  - sickofparadox 3y ago
    I don't think I've said anything of the sort, your company generally should not be forced to provide service to people. Your company should also not be pressured to stop doing business with people because someone does not like that person. That is all I have said.
    - paulmd 3y ago
      > Your company should also not be pressured to stop doing business with people because someone does not like that person these people have the same right to speech that you do, why do you feel this right should be suppressed for them (but - presumably - not for yourself)? if their speech is more persuasive then surely that's the marketplace of ideas working as intended, right? why should the government step in and restrict the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association?
      - sickofparadox 3y ago
        You are responding to points I have not made, I have not said that the government should come in and restrict anyone's rights. Please try harder to understand the discussion you are joining before making an essentially off-topic post.
    - DetroitThrow 3y ago
Analemma_ 3y ago
If that's your solution, fine, but be aware that you're also authorizing people to wield societal shame against you for having the wrong opinion. And those people are probably a lot louder and more powerful, or this wouldn't be an issue in the first place.
- sickofparadox 3y ago
  I am absolutely aware, and that is partially why I do my best to remain anonymous while I advocate for these things.
  - DetroitThrow 3y ago
    It's worth mentioning that as a company, I'd be much more inclined to listen to people with real names, faces, and reputations rather than anonymous internet profiles when an issue comes about regarding "Did I do a socially unacceptable thing?" Grappling with others in society does seem like a losing battle for those who support actions that society deems as socially unacceptable

lovich 3y ago

So use the same techniques you’re decrying? If you’re suggestion for a moral quandary is to fight fire with fire then most people are going to choose the side they find more morally “good” and you’re going to find that free speech gets limited more and more as you hold up groups like kiwi farms as someone to protect from non government infrastructure and services. You’re not solving the fundamental mismatch between letting people/orgs do as they please with their property and simultaneously wanting to let other private actors do as they please on the same property. “Free Speech” as a concept only aligns with “Free Speech” as a right when it comes to interactions between the government and private actors. It doesn’t line up with private-private interactions because you are inherently infringing on others rights when you want to use their property in a way they don’t want it to be used

sickofparadox 3y ago
It's not the techniques I am against, mass protest or popular action are both time-tested foundations of modern democracy. I am against people demanding that companies be exact mirrors of their morality, and that they only associate with those within their specific societal whitelist. Edit: In fact, there are many things that I think should not be illegal but should be socially shameful for people to do.
- lovich 3y ago
  I don’t get what you’re complaining about then. Social pressure is shaming people into not doing actions like host the type of content that kiwifarms produces. I can’t come to any interpretation other than you’re just mad that your camp of ideals lost in the public sphere of ideas.
  - sickofparadox 3y ago
    >I am against people demanding that companies be exact mirrors of their morality, and that they only associate with those within their specific societal whitelist.
DetroitThrow 3y ago
> So use the same techniques you’re decrying? ..But who cancels the, err, cancel-ers? Jokes aside, I'm always surprised by people who manage to conflate "freedom of speech" rights with the idea all speech should be given every single megaphone that exists for every other type of speech. Yes, the government shouldn't hunt you down for using racial slurs on your homestead far away from society, but society shouldn't have to give people who hurl racial slurs their primetime news slots. It's usually much easier for normal people to reason about NBC and a racist than the slightly more abstracted and much more online idea of "[private internet infrastructure] should always be made available for every person, because speech!!"
- sickofparadox 3y ago
  I don't think I've said anything of the sort, your company generally should not be forced to provide service to people. Your company should also not be pressured to stop doing business with people because someone does not like that person. That is all I have said.
  - paulmd 3y ago
    > Your company should also not be pressured to stop doing business with people because someone does not like that person these people have the same right to speech that you do, why do you feel this right should be suppressed for them (but - presumably - not for yourself)? if their speech is more persuasive then surely that's the marketplace of ideas working as intended, right? why should the government step in and restrict the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association?
    - sickofparadox 3y ago
      You are responding to points I have not made, I have not said that the government should come in and restrict anyone's rights. Please try harder to understand the discussion you are joining before making an essentially off-topic post.
  - DetroitThrow 3y ago

Analemma_ 3y ago

If that's your solution, fine, but be aware that you're also authorizing people to wield societal shame against you for having the wrong opinion. And those people are probably a lot louder and more powerful, or this wouldn't be an issue in the first place.

sickofparadox 3y ago
I am absolutely aware, and that is partially why I do my best to remain anonymous while I advocate for these things.
- DetroitThrow 3y ago
  It's worth mentioning that as a company, I'd be much more inclined to listen to people with real names, faces, and reputations rather than anonymous internet profiles when an issue comes about regarding "Did I do a socially unacceptable thing?" Grappling with others in society does seem like a losing battle for those who support actions that society deems as socially unacceptable