5 ms·

As a European, I don't really see what the fuss is all about. I acknowledge that there's the Second Amendment, but articles like these sound a bit as if people

by wink 14y ago

As a European, I don't really see what the fuss is all about. I acknowledge that there's the Second Amendment, but articles like these sound a bit as if people were offended if there are shops that refuse to sell firearms or, like in this case, websites/companies that refuse to meddle in these affairs. A bit like being upset that the vegetarian restaurant won't sell you beef...

saurik 14y ago
I am not certain whether or not I agree with your conclusion (nor do I feel like my personal opinion would be relevant right now anyway), but I will point out a few details about this situation based on your argument and analogy: 1) many people feel the situation of Google Shopping refusing to list firearms is actually closer in analogy to "a steak restaurant refusing to allow vegetarians into their restaurant" than your example of "a vegetarian restaurant refusing to sell you a steak" and: 2) that the implication from Google is that these activities are illegal (hence their claim that they did this to "comply with local laws and regulations"), when many people believe that not only is this activity legal, but is explicitly protected by the United State's constitution. This article then goes to point out that the various "key players" believe this comes off more as a political statement than a business decision. The comments on the second page (which many may have missed) are also somewhat interesting, bringing up previous situations that paint Google's position in a less consistent light. With that all said, I will now draw a different form of analogy, to see whether the same argument dismissal still works: let's say that Google Shopping decided it would no longer sell yamikas, or if Google Maps decided that you couldn't have a sponsored listing for a mosque, or if Google AdWords decided it would not allow advertisements targeted against pending legislation to ban gay marriage rights. In any of these situations, I am fairly certain that we would see tons of upset people claiming the exact same issues: that Google was attempting to use their market position in a politically motivated way, and that they should not be allowed to discriminate. This side would feel that entities with as much centralized power as Google cause an unfair power balance against individuals and minorities. At the same time, we would see people arguing that, while they personally disagree strongly with the actions of Google, they feel that government should not be able to mandate what individual actors do, and that if you want to do any of these things you should go make your own website; some would even say "this is a perfect opportunity for an alternative Jewish/Islamic/LGBTQ-friendly service provider". To me, this is a fascinating and complex argument, where neither side is in any way obviously wrong; while at the end of the day we need to make practical decisions in specific circumstances as we all live in the same seemingly-objective reality, we really shouldn't be so quick to dismiss other peoples' positions (and this applies even if the underlying position of one side of an argument seems morally reprehensible to us: it is often the case that the person we are judging feels the same about us).
- wtracy 14y ago
  "that the implication from Google is that these activities are illegal" Google does operate outside of the US, so I don't know why everyone is so quick to assume that they're doing this to comply with some US law.
  - saurik 14y ago
    If Google used the same operating policies in all countries that apply to every individual country in which they operate, then the number of things that would either not be listed or be heavily discriminated against would be enormous, and would certainly include things that would cause more than a few people to be fairly angry due to feeling discriminated against.
- kls 14y ago
  In the situations you listed many of them are protected classes of items related to race/creed/ or religion. I would say that it would be more akin to Google saying that they will no longer take advertisement from people / companies offering abortion services. In which case they would see a similar outcry from a different group of people.

by wink 14y ago

saurik 14y ago

I am not certain whether or not I agree with your conclusion (nor do I feel like my personal opinion would be relevant right now anyway), but I will point out a few details about this situation based on your argument and analogy: 1) many people feel the situation of Google Shopping refusing to list firearms is actually closer in analogy to "a steak restaurant refusing to allow vegetarians into their restaurant" than your example of "a vegetarian restaurant refusing to sell you a steak" and: 2) that the implication from Google is that these activities are illegal (hence their claim that they did this to "comply with local laws and regulations"), when many people believe that not only is this activity legal, but is explicitly protected by the United State's constitution. This article then goes to point out that the various "key players" believe this comes off more as a political statement than a business decision. The comments on the second page (which many may have missed) are also somewhat interesting, bringing up previous situations that paint Google's position in a less consistent light. With that all said, I will now draw a different form of analogy, to see whether the same argument dismissal still works: let's say that Google Shopping decided it would no longer sell yamikas, or if Google Maps decided that you couldn't have a sponsored listing for a mosque, or if Google AdWords decided it would not allow advertisements targeted against pending legislation to ban gay marriage rights. In any of these situations, I am fairly certain that we would see tons of upset people claiming the exact same issues: that Google was attempting to use their market position in a politically motivated way, and that they should not be allowed to discriminate. This side would feel that entities with as much centralized power as Google cause an unfair power balance against individuals and minorities. At the same time, we would see people arguing that, while they personally disagree strongly with the actions of Google, they feel that government should not be able to mandate what individual actors do, and that if you want to do any of these things you should go make your own website; some would even say "this is a perfect opportunity for an alternative Jewish/Islamic/LGBTQ-friendly service provider". To me, this is a fascinating and complex argument, where neither side is in any way obviously wrong; while at the end of the day we need to make practical decisions in specific circumstances as we all live in the same seemingly-objective reality, we really shouldn't be so quick to dismiss other peoples' positions (and this applies even if the underlying position of one side of an argument seems morally reprehensible to us: it is often the case that the person we are judging feels the same about us).

wtracy 14y ago
"that the implication from Google is that these activities are illegal" Google does operate outside of the US, so I don't know why everyone is so quick to assume that they're doing this to comply with some US law.
- saurik 14y ago
  If Google used the same operating policies in all countries that apply to every individual country in which they operate, then the number of things that would either not be listed or be heavily discriminated against would be enormous, and would certainly include things that would cause more than a few people to be fairly angry due to feeling discriminated against.
kls 14y ago
In the situations you listed many of them are protected classes of items related to race/creed/ or religion. I would say that it would be more akin to Google saying that they will no longer take advertisement from people / companies offering abortion services. In which case they would see a similar outcry from a different group of people.