Author Topic: Deplatforming  (Read 10684 times)

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #100 on: July 04, 2019, 07:53:58 PM »
I have to admit I find it hilarious that the righttards that continue to screech about government overreach are gonna get so upset about a private company telling dickheads to *censored* off.

It's a private company, Comrade Crunch. If you don't like private companies choosing their own paths and what they should be free to so,  well. I know that will be a hard decision for you lol.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #101 on: July 04, 2019, 08:46:53 PM »
That point is the only one that keeps me from getting worked up about it.  I don't LIKE (get it?  thumbs up? hah?) that this version of standing up against toxic behavior is becoming more prevalent, but we got no "right" to these platforms. 

Asking or demanding the government grant us that right, and giving them the means to "protect" it for us...  That sounds like some serious nightmare fuel to me.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #102 on: July 04, 2019, 11:23:35 PM »
I have to admit I find it hilarious that the righttards that continue to screech about government overreach are gonna get so upset about a private company telling dickheads to *censored* off.

It's a private company, Comrade Crunch. If you don't like private companies choosing their own paths and what they should be free to so,  well. I know that will be a hard decision for you lol.

But at the same time, it does raise valid questions about the legal status of such services and what legal protections they should or should not be allowed based upon how they handle "public speech" within their purview.

Because on one hand Google wants to be protected from liability for content on their services due to their public nature(which cannot be reliably controlled due to said public nature)... While they're simultaneously demonstrating their ability to exercise control over said "uncontrollable public content," and further seem to have a heavy political slant as to what content they decide to actively exclude from their platforms.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #103 on: July 05, 2019, 08:10:57 AM »
I have to admit I find it hilarious that the righttards that continue to screech about government overreach are gonna get so upset about a private company telling dickheads to *censored* off.

It's a private company, Comrade Crunch. If you don't like private companies choosing their own paths and what they should be free to so,  well. I know that will be a hard decision for you lol.

It is a private company, they can do what they want. I don’t recall ever saying otherwise but I suppose setting up that strawman and adding in the ad hominem was fun for you. JFC, Trump Derangement Syndrome has really reduced some IQ’s.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #104 on: July 05, 2019, 11:08:25 AM »
I have to admit I find it hilarious that the righttards that continue to screech about government overreach are gonna get so upset about a private company telling dickheads to *censored* off.

It's a private company, Comrade Crunch. If you don't like private companies choosing their own paths and what they should be free to so,  well. I know that will be a hard decision for you lol.

Do you mean to say that you agree the deplatforming is a problem, but that you find right-wing opposition to it inconsistent with their other beliefs? Or are you saying that these platforms should, in fact, be left alone to do as they please in this regard and that no objections - including those of the right - hold any water?

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #105 on: July 05, 2019, 01:47:21 PM »
I have to admit I find it hilarious that the righttards that continue to screech about government overreach are gonna get so upset about a private company telling dickheads to *censored* off.

Not sure we needed the insults, the conversations here are already fiery enough.  I do agree there is a bit of tension here for those on the right, particularly those of a libertarian bent. 

But I think you're not looking at this in the right context if you can't resolve the situation.  It seems to me that this is clearly resolved by the principals established in Marsh v. Alabama https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama.  Where the SC established the rule that the more you open a private property to pubic use (which is very much the case in social media) the more you are required to honor Constitutional Rights.

This was further clarified (though confusingly in our instance) in Pruneyard Shopping https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v._Robins to establish that state laws may provided expanded free speech rights because the Federal Constitution sets a baseline.  That meant that in CA malls open to the public were restricted in their ability to restrict free speech in a way that may not be the case in another state.

It's an interesting question as to what the locus of these companies is for this purpose, I suspect that given their headquarters are in CA and their restrictions impact people in CA it's a no brainer that the higher burdens in CA will apply, higher burdens in other states may apply as well.  In any event, opening social media to the public, even under Marsh almost certainly creates an obligation to honor Constitutional free speech.

As a second point, I find it absolutely unacceptable to provide immunity from suits based on content to such platforms based on the theory that the platforms are public and the substance the speech of the users rather than the platform, if they turn around and demonstrate ability and willingness to censor speech based on content.  That theory is absolutely inconsistent with the exercise of political censorship based on view point. 

Quote
It's a private company, Comrade Crunch. If you don't like private companies choosing their own paths and what they should be free to so,  well. I know that will be a hard decision for you lol.

It is a private company, and if they kept their networks private they would have absolute censorship rights.  However, they deliberately (as it's their business model) opened them to the public and it's pretty much settled law (though not yet clearly applied to digital spaces) that in doing so they lost some of their ability to restrict speech.  Really read the words used in March and try to square them with your ideas.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #106 on: July 05, 2019, 03:44:42 PM »
Nice break down Seriati.

Quote
As a second point, I find it absolutely unacceptable to provide immunity from suits based on content to such platforms based on the theory that the platforms are public and the substance the speech of the users rather than the platform, if they turn around and demonstrate ability and willingness to censor speech based on content.  That theory is absolutely inconsistent with the exercise of political censorship based on view point. 
To me this is a technological issue.  Their business model simply does not work if they are required to meet the standard.  That's why they want immunity. 

Now we can decide that this business model / the whole social media "thing" just isn't possible without granting immunity and shut it all down... (until the bots/AI are up to it) Or we can grant them some sort of immunity.  I think we all know for a fact that our lawmakers, as an aggregate, are NOT up for that technical of a debate / law crafting.  I think enough know that so they drag their feet, and enough tech companies know it that they are lobbying for all they are worth to avoid it.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #107 on: July 05, 2019, 04:06:56 PM »
It depends. There is a difference between an affirmative duty to police all content versus responding to particular content. If someone issues a death threat via Twitter, they aren't complicit, but once they know about it they have a moral obligation to block the user.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #108 on: July 05, 2019, 04:32:22 PM »
The point wasn't just the validity/non-validity of the technical limitation, the point was the immunity is related to the platform being public and the content the user's responsibility, which is absolutely in line with the public use doctrine in Marsh and the limits that come with it.  If on the other hand they are expressing a private right to control the content on the basis that it is their speech then there should be no "public platform" immunity.  They can't be a "public platform of user speech" and a "private speaker" on the exact same content, with the test for which applies being which benefits them more.

Not to mention that the way multiple platforms coordinate to deplatform an individual is almost certainly an illegal act under our existing anti-trust laws that prohibit conspiracy and coordination among competitors in the market.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #109 on: July 05, 2019, 08:18:27 PM »
I won't try and parse through the intricacies of the applicable law, I'll let the courts do that. I'm sure there is some middle ground between an unlimited dark web and fully curated content. Just like on ornery, there are terms of service and moderation.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #110 on: July 08, 2019, 08:39:00 PM »
For a good detailed article on the legality of online content management, recommend this from the ABA journal

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #111 on: July 09, 2019, 11:21:25 AM »
I suggest reading that again, and this time keep firmly in your head that the tech companies are huge clients of the legal world (and those whose free speech rights are infringed don't have the same financial resources), and that the recommended solution - more regulations, means more legal work.

It looks to me like they did not come down on the side of protecting people's rights.  I mean we live in an era where active litigants have managed to get national injunctions stopping actions that are clearly within the executive authority, the idea that you couldn't get an extension of Marsh from an activist judge is false and you may be able to do it from an average judge.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #112 on: July 09, 2019, 11:57:35 AM »
Among the nuances in the article that I found interesting is the challenge of being a global company. Let's say they are held to a First Amendment standard, and are no longer allowed to delete content unless it crosses the same lines that the government must adhere to. This would then put them in direct conflict with EU laws that demand removal of certain content. I'm not sure exactly how that could be reconciled and still allow a functioning product.

Either way, they would still be able to demonetize videos, etc. There is no free speech argument that says you have to get paid for your speech. Nor does it have to be promoted in feeds.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #113 on: July 09, 2019, 12:22:55 PM »
Just now:

Quote
An appeals court said Tuesday President Donald Trump cannot legally block users on Twitter.

The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a New York judge's ruling and found that Trump "engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by utilizing Twitter's 'blocking' function to limit certain users' access to his social media account, which is otherwise open to the public at large, because he disagrees with their speech."

"We hold that he engaged in such discrimination," the ruling adds.

The judges on the appeals court concluded that "the First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise-open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees."

I'm assuming that AOC and all the other politicians fond of blocking users will be forced to comply as well. Right?

How hard is it going to be to replace "public official" with "corporate entities"? Whoever wanted this to happen is going to regret the victory

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #114 on: July 09, 2019, 12:28:36 PM »
Either way, they would still be able to demonetize videos, etc. There is no free speech argument that says you have to get paid for your speech. Nor does it have to be promoted in feeds.

I don't have problem with that.  There's probably an argument for unjust enrichment, but I'm not sure how strong it would be.

Dealing with US/EU conflicts is an increasing part of the legal sphere.  This would not be the first place where the EU laws directly make illegal conduct that is illegal in the US.  If we don't come up with an international solution or a strong policy of US government intervention, then eventually, we'll all have to all live with the most restrictive set of rules.  Kind of bizarrre to accept that the first amendment absolutely restricts the US government (in which we can participate) from restricting our speech and then to turn around and let the French government restrict us in even more aggressive ways.

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #115 on: July 09, 2019, 12:42:35 PM »
Its messy. I think because the President uses Twitter as a way to state and shape political policy I understand the courts ruling. Hes the President everyone gets to comment
But yeah I would think the ruling is problematic.  I'm not sure I can define what free speech is anymore in the world of virtual communication.

Personally as a political tool, actually as a form of communication in general, I don't like twitter or participate with it in anyway so my opinion is biased.
I imagine though if you can't block people any usefulness of twitter as a form of communication will become even more difficult to parse through.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #116 on: July 09, 2019, 12:52:10 PM »
Just now:

Quote
An appeals court said Tuesday President Donald Trump cannot legally block users on Twitter.

The 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a New York judge's ruling and found that Trump "engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by utilizing Twitter's 'blocking' function to limit certain users' access to his social media account, which is otherwise open to the public at large, because he disagrees with their speech."

"We hold that he engaged in such discrimination," the ruling adds.

The judges on the appeals court concluded that "the First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise-open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees."

I'm assuming that AOC and all the other politicians fond of blocking users will be forced to comply as well. Right?

How hard is it going to be to replace "public official" with "corporate entities"? Whoever wanted this to happen is going to regret the victory

Absolutely AOC would be in the exact same position. You can find articles pointing this out, even in the mainstream media. This from the NYT:

Quote
Other judges have issued similar rulings: Earlier this year, the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., upheld a lower-court ruling that the Democratic chairwoman of the Loudoun County board of supervisors had violated the First Amendment rights of a constituent by blocking him on Facebook for about 12 hours.

Elsewhere, a federal judge in Wisconsin ruled that three state assemblymen violated the First Amendment when they blocked a liberal advocacy group on Twitter; Jerry Brown, the former Democratic governor of California, produced records in 2017 showing that he had in the past blocked more than 1,500 people on Facebook and Twitter; and Paul Gosar, a Republican congressman of Arizona who in 2017 wrote a post on Facebook titled, “So you’re upset I blocked you on Facebook. Here’s why I don’t care, a three-part series,” said last year in a court filing that he was no longer blocking anyone.

This is not appearing to be a Trump exclusive phenomenon.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #117 on: July 09, 2019, 06:44:58 PM »
Its messy. I think because the President uses Twitter as a way to state and shape political policy I understand the courts ruling. Hes the President everyone gets to comment
But yeah I would think the ruling is problematic.  I'm not sure I can define what free speech is anymore in the world of virtual communication.

Personally as a political tool, actually as a form of communication in general, I don't like twitter or participate with it in anyway so my opinion is biased.
I imagine though if you can't block people any usefulness of twitter as a form of communication will become even more difficult to parse through.

Does everyone get to comment ?  Why?

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #118 on: July 09, 2019, 06:51:20 PM »
Its messy. I think because the President uses Twitter as a way to state and shape political policy I understand the courts ruling. Hes the President everyone gets to comment
But yeah I would think the ruling is problematic.  I'm not sure I can define what free speech is anymore in the world of virtual communication.

Personally as a political tool, actually as a form of communication in general, I don't like twitter or participate with it in anyway so my opinion is biased.
I imagine though if you can't block people any usefulness of twitter as a form of communication will become even more difficult to parse through.

Does everyone get to comment ?  Why?

Because laws. See court case.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #119 on: July 09, 2019, 07:18:55 PM »
Deep insight. Deep.

So if a public official holds a press conference, everybody gets to comment? Does the official have to allow everyone to speak?

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #120 on: July 10, 2019, 12:02:23 AM »
I guess if you invited millions of people to your press conference, offered everyone a chance to speak, and then denied your most popular critics their turn, that might start to approach equivalence. Funny how you're all about free speech and letting everyone be heard except in this instance.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #121 on: July 10, 2019, 06:59:44 AM »
I’m not for or against thi yet, I’m srill asking questions and figuring this out.

Invite millions. So there’s a number limit involved? What’s that limit?

If a politician holds a townhall meeting and a few hundred show up, is there now a requirement that every single person be allowed to speak?

What about that whole private company thing? Twitter routinely bans people for speech it doesn’t like. That’s a place of millions, should Twitter be allowed to silence its critics?

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #122 on: July 10, 2019, 09:04:17 AM »
Maybe it's more like owning the convention hall, having an event "open to the public", then having security escort some "disruptive people" off the premises. 

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #123 on: July 10, 2019, 09:20:59 AM »
I’m not for or against thi yet, I’m srill asking questions and figuring this out.

Invite millions. So there’s a number limit involved? What’s that limit?

If a politician holds a townhall meeting and a few hundred show up, is there now a requirement that every single person be allowed to speak?

What about that whole private company thing? Twitter routinely bans people for speech it doesn’t like. That’s a place of millions, should Twitter be allowed to silence its critics?

Twitter isn't a public official. The restriction is about government. If Trump or AOC had an account on Twitter where they posted pictures of their cats and their dinner they'd be free to ban whomever they want.

Town halls don't have that requirement because the question askers are prearranged and handpicked, typically. But if they weren't, then you are still selecting each individual. This is unlike a city council meeting where people can just step in line for the microphone. The key point isn't necessarily the number as much as it is an invitation generally available to the public.

There is a really good reason why there has never been a comments section on Whitehouse.gov

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #124 on: July 10, 2019, 09:51:08 AM »
Quote
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is facing 2 lawsuits for blocking Twitter users based on their personal viewpoints. They were filed after a court ruled that President Trump violated the Constitution in blocking critics on Twitter

So, there's that.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #125 on: July 10, 2019, 09:51:58 AM »
Maybe it's more like owning the convention hall, having an event "open to the public", then having security escort some "disruptive people" off the premises.

Yeah, maybe. It just seems like this is going to be an impossible thing to manage.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #126 on: July 10, 2019, 09:55:26 AM »
I’m not for or against thi yet, I’m srill asking questions and figuring this out.

Invite millions. So there’s a number limit involved? What’s that limit?

If a politician holds a townhall meeting and a few hundred show up, is there now a requirement that every single person be allowed to speak?

What about that whole private company thing? Twitter routinely bans people for speech it doesn’t like. That’s a place of millions, should Twitter be allowed to silence its critics?

Twitter isn't a public official. The restriction is about government. If Trump or AOC had an account on Twitter where they posted pictures of their cats and their dinner they'd be free to ban whomever they want.

Town halls don't have that requirement because the question askers are prearranged and handpicked, typically. But if they weren't, then you are still selecting each individual. This is unlike a city council meeting where people can just step in line for the microphone. The key point isn't necessarily the number as much as it is an invitation generally available to the public.

What about the right to freedom of association? Do elected officials give up on that right on social media?


There is a really good reason why there has never been a comments section on Whitehouse.gov

So I guess the lesson is,  never give a platform to the people for them to voice their thoughts on public policy.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #127 on: July 10, 2019, 10:32:07 AM »
Cash is speech.  Put enough of your voice in an envelope and I'm sure someone will listen.   ;D

rightleft22

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #128 on: July 10, 2019, 10:34:03 AM »
Quote
So I guess the lesson is,  never give a platform to the people for them to voice their thoughts on public policy.

The lesson I learned by observing people voicing their thoughts via social media comment sections is that there is very few constructive comments. Mostly its opinions/talking points/anger that tend to deviate from the specific topic/statement into partisan bias/spin usually to the extreme. The tone of the comments dominated by a few loud self righteous voices and a desire for the most likes.

If you banned anyone that disliked a comment/post, made fun of a poster, attempted to derail a thread... you have very people left.

The lesson I learned is that social media virtual conversation is all to easily manipulated by the few creating a false impression about what most people feel and think. And its very easy to get lost in (if you find yourself angry or sad all the time when you engage, time to step away.)

If Social media is a kind of artificial collective consciousness it hasn't evolved beyond the lowest level of the ID. Its all fight or flight.

Seriati

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #129 on: July 10, 2019, 11:38:24 AM »
The lesson I learned is that some people are either paid to stalk specific posters or have nothing better to do.  Think of the way the first to post, first to appear mechanics actually operate.  Trump tweets and the same 20 haters routinely fill the first 5-10 spots in the responses.  Effectively, they are leveraging Trump's platform to get their speech out.  That doesn't seem reasonable to me.  Maybe the solution is just to randomize how responses show up on a politician's account or to let a politician sort them into negative and positive and let the users decide which they want to read.

"Stolen" celebrity is a problem to me, and it's used by certain people not to engage in free speech but to magnify their own voice.  Honestly, if they have something to say they should have to stand on their own not on reflected spotlights.

Banning was a crude way to deal with, but it was essentially the only tool available.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #130 on: July 10, 2019, 11:39:52 AM »
Quote
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is facing 2 lawsuits for blocking Twitter users based on their personal viewpoints. They were filed after a court ruled that President Trump violated the Constitution in blocking critics on Twitter

So, there's that.

Good. Like I said above, AOC need to stop doing that.

DJQuag

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #131 on: July 12, 2019, 08:05:49 PM »
Best solution would be to require public officials to register a second account once they've been elected.

I'd be quite happy to judge Trump differently on his personal twitter if he hadn't high jacked the Whitehouse account to spew insane crap. On the one, you're making yourself look like an idiot. On the other, you're making us all look like idiots with a big shiny seal of approval on it.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #132 on: July 13, 2019, 02:05:51 PM »
There is an official white house social media already. If Trump used that, the problem would remain if he posted the same stuff and banned people from criticism.

D.W.

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #133 on: July 14, 2019, 09:14:25 AM »
It would remain, but it would allow for the opportunity to draw a very clear line.  There's no more, "I should have the right to ban someone just like any user!" 

"Nope, you are not just any user.  This is an official platform of your office and there are rules." 

"I should be able to share whatever I want, I like what this guy had to say!"

"Actually this should be run through your communications team to vet it first and make sure neither this post, or something associated with the author, doesn't embarrass us later."

"None of this is fair!  Don't I have free speech rights as well?"

"Sure, but you also have an obligation to live up to, and preserver respect for this office; and you still have your personal account which you can use at any time.
 That distinction showing the public that these are your personal thoughts and comments as any other user and not as a government official speaking in the capacity of that office."





So no, none of that would work with Trump unless it required multiple launch keys from anonymous staffers all approving and executing any particular tweet.  But it SHOULD work on most.


cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #134 on: July 20, 2019, 08:06:55 AM »
"The beauty queen went on to say that she had no intention of using her platform for divisive politics, but instead to encourage people to use their voice, no matter the cause."

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/trump-supporting-miss-michigan-stripped-of-title-162200073.html

Trump-supporting Miss Michigan stripped of title over ‘racist’ tweets: ‘Yet another example of #Magaphobia’

Just adding to the list.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #135 on: July 20, 2019, 09:03:21 AM »
So a private company can't fire their official spokesperson for saying things that don't reflect organization values. Especially ones that might potentially affect their sponsors and therefore revenue? She probably could have skated through if she had not been belligerent and dismissive, and by the way, all he wanted to do was talk to her. She unilaterally quit, if you read the text exchanges. Plus, they were asking about whether she was suspended from a school she attended, which is a disqualifying criteria.

Yet Another Invented Oppression.

cherrypoptart

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #136 on: July 20, 2019, 11:18:03 AM »
None of that was the gist of that story. Must have been more fake news then because they made it sound like there was a lot more there.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #137 on: July 20, 2019, 02:03:01 PM »
None of that was the gist of that story. Must have been more fake news then because they made it sound like there was a lot more there.

True. You have to read the original text message exchange that preceded the official letter, her statements, and the media storm both for and against her.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #138 on: July 22, 2019, 07:58:49 AM »
So a private company can't fire their official spokesperson for saying things that don't reflect organization values. Especially ones that might potentially affect their sponsors and therefore revenue? She probably could have skated through if she had not been belligerent and dismissive, and by the way, all he wanted to do was talk to her. She unilaterally quit, if you read the text exchanges. Plus, they were asking about whether she was suspended from a school she attended, which is a disqualifying criteria.

Yet Another Invented Oppression.

Unless it’s a bakery. Then they couldn’t, right? Or was that invented?

Can you explain why some companies have this right and others don’t?


Pete at Home

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #139 on: July 22, 2019, 10:17:16 AM »
Robert Spencer is a curious case. Patreon cancelled his account, and somewhat foggily blamed it on Mastercard.

I think he's a dbag, but this is somewhat disturbing nonetheless. It's grounded in reality, the UK banned his entry to the country.

I understand Facebook having community standards, twitter, youtube. I'm not at all sure about applying that to finance. Mastercard, paypal, patreon, AMEX are in a whole different category. Of course, it isn't entirely new. ISIL can't take in donations via Patreon either, nor can the KKK AFAIK.

This could quickly get out of control. I'm reminded about the Communist blacklists that effectively stopped people from getting jobs. It might not have sounded like a bad idea when the first people put on the lists were vocally advocating the destruction of the US Constitutional government. Then it turned into people who might have checked out one meeting, or just had a general leftist opinion.

Michael Richards used a racial slur once. It is possible to conceive of a world where credit card companies cancel his line of credit, condo associations refuse to allow him into buildings, etc. Essential blacklisting.

So basically there’s nothing new about what the PRC is doing with social approval schemes.  Just whether it’s companies or the state doing it.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #140 on: July 22, 2019, 01:41:24 PM »
Unless it’s a bakery. Then they couldn’t, right? Or was that invented?

Can you explain why some companies have this right and others don’t?

I was never on the side of the gay activists who targeted that bakery. Would you really want somebody who hates you to cook for you?

In any event, those are apples and oranges. It's someone who works for you, versus someone who wants to buy something. I don't expect you to know the difference, Crunch.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #141 on: July 22, 2019, 02:00:18 PM »
I was never on the side of the gay activists who targeted that bakery. Would you really want somebody who hates you to cook for you?

I'll take my turn at being pedantic about this point, because I don't like misconceptions about the argument here to be misunderstood. Being against gay marriage does not mean hating gay people, although some people who are against it may well feel that way. The argument more broadly is whether you should have to perform custom services to serve something against your beliefs, in this case a gay marriage but it could just as soon have been a Scientology luncheon. As such, I'm sure many things you believe in are contrary to the beliefs of people you associate with, sometimes egregiously so, and yet it's not a given that you wouldn't want to do business with someone who disagrees with you. It would be silly to argue, for instance, "why would you want to order catering from a company whose owner is a Republican, since I'm a Democrat"? This kind of thinking would be very destructive, I think. The interpersonal issue (aside from the legal one) is not so much you don't want their cake because they hate you, but rather that the personal disagreement is directly related to the service being offered. A construction contractor who is against gay marriage would likely have no problem doing a home renovation project for a gay couple, since doing home repair isn't directly related to being gay. However if the service is baking a cake for the gay wedding then the disagreement becomes directly pertinent. I can imagine, however, that if that same gay couple went to that same baker requesting a custom cake for a police banquet function there would have been no objection.

TheDeamon

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #142 on: July 22, 2019, 03:00:50 PM »
Unless it’s a bakery. Then they couldn’t, right? Or was that invented?

Can you explain why some companies have this right and others don’t?

I was never on the side of the gay activists who targeted that bakery. Would you really want somebody who hates you to cook for you?

In any event, those are apples and oranges. It's someone who works for you, versus someone who wants to buy something. I don't expect you to know the difference, Crunch.

So if the Bakery decided to hire somebody to work the counter who espouses Gay Rights positions after being hired?

I'm not talking about "coming out" as being gay, and otherwise not doing anything to provoke them. I mean they're loudly advertising their status as either being gay, or their support for gays, while at the work place.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #143 on: July 22, 2019, 03:38:31 PM »
I'll take my turn at being pedantic about this point, because I don't like misconceptions about the argument here to be misunderstood. Being against gay marriage does not mean hating gay people, although some people who are against it may well feel that way.

Fine, fine. Substitute "why would you want to buy a cake from someone who doesn't support marriage equality". Point is, if you get turned down for any event, you move on. You know why those bakers refused, right? It wasn't an esoteric point about weddings, it was because they think homosexuality is evil.

Quote
Phillips admitted he had turned away other same-sex couples as a matter of policy. The CCRD’s decision noted evidence in the record that Phillips had expressed willingness to take a cake order for the “marriage” of two dogs, but not for the commitment ceremony of two women, and that he would not make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding celebration “just as he would not be willing to make a pedophile cake.”

So, pedophiles are the most reviled people on the planet, and he's equating homosexuals to them.

I understand what you are saying about the case, and the law, but let's be clear that these particular bakers were haters.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #144 on: July 22, 2019, 04:05:32 PM »
Fine, fine. Substitute "why would you want to buy a cake from someone who doesn't support marriage equality".

You could rephrase it to this, but without the word "hate" in there your question looses its fuel. There might be good reason to avoid having dealings with someone who hates you. There isn't much of a reason IMO to avoid dealings with someone who doesn't support your beliefs or lifestyle. Or...what, you'd advocate that Jews avoid going to any shop owned by any Muslim, or that liberals avoid going to any shop owned by a conservative? The "doesn't support X" criterion for avoiding people is a major red flag in terms of civilization proceeding nicely.

Quote
You know why those bakers refused, right? It wasn't an esoteric point about weddings, it was because they think homosexuality is evil.

Well, they may think that, but it was ostensibly because they don't want to contribute to what they see as a sinful occasion. You can hate it or not hate it to want nothing to do with it. Trying to divine the 'true reason' for their refusal is a bit pointless, if there is a legitimate real reason in front of it.

Quote
Quote
Phillips admitted he had turned away other same-sex couples as a matter of policy. The CCRD’s decision noted evidence in the record that Phillips had expressed willingness to take a cake order for the “marriage” of two dogs, but not for the commitment ceremony of two women, and that he would not make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding celebration “just as he would not be willing to make a pedophile cake.”

So, pedophiles are the most reviled people on the planet, and he's equating homosexuals to them.

The statement you quoted is not an equation, but a statement of two different cases falling under the same policy. A person will not eat peanuts if they have a peanut allergy since it will kill them, and they likewise will not eat poison since it will kill them; but these two facts put together do not constitute an equation between peanuts and poison.

That said it's a weird statement to make. Perhaps they were trying to distinguish between cases that were morally relevant
(such as the cake directly or indirectly contributing to sin) from cases that are morally irrelevant (such as two dogs "marrying" where dogs are not moral agents).

Quote
I understand what you are saying about the case, and the law, but let's be clear that these particular bakers were haters.

You may be right. But the individual case is actually irrelevant, since any scenario involving a legitimate argument can involve haters. A Republican can be against socialism because they disagree with its economic mechanics; that same person might also actively hate socialists. The second point is irrelevant to the first, and it would be improper to assume that any given person against socialism and refusing to support it also hates socialists.

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #145 on: July 22, 2019, 04:41:35 PM »
My statement was very specific about that case. I tend to agree with the case, a custom service should always be a choice as it is a commissioned work of art. You wouldn't force a painter to do a Mural on a subject she didn't want to paint.

I wouldn't advocate that Jews avoid going to any shop owned by a Muslim. I would advocate that Jews avoid going to a shop owned by a holocaust denier.

I think you don't understand what "just as" means as an idiom. It isn't about a strict equality, its about saying that these things are similar enough to use it as an analogy. It's like saying "I wouldn't hire somebody who shoplifted just as I wouldn't hire a murderer. It puts the things being compared into a common bucket. And it isn't a new thing for people to compare homosexuality to pedophilia or bestiality.

Fenring

  • Member
  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #146 on: July 22, 2019, 05:05:04 PM »
I think you don't understand what "just as" means as an idiom. It isn't about a strict equality, its about saying that these things are similar enough to use it as an analogy.

Right. But this was *your* summary of the quote:

Quote
So, pedophiles are the most reviled people on the planet, and he's equating homosexuals to them.

I was responding to what you wrote.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #147 on: July 22, 2019, 06:43:27 PM »
Unless it’s a bakery. Then they couldn’t, right? Or was that invented?

Can you explain why some companies have this right and others don’t?

I was never on the side of the gay activists who targeted that bakery. Would you really want somebody who hates you to cook for you?

Apparently the left does. They went after him a couple of times. But you know this wasn’t about a cake, right? It was about forcing a private company to do something they didn’t want to do.

In any event, those are apples and oranges. It's someone who works for you, versus someone who wants to buy something. I don't expect you to know the difference, Crunch.

No it’s not. It’s about telling private companies what to do. You want to dig down in the pedantic weeds for cover, go ahead.

Crunch

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #148 on: July 22, 2019, 06:50:11 PM »
Quote
I understand what you are saying about the case, and the law, but let's be clear that these particular bakers were haters.

Haters. Perhaps they were nazis? What other dehumanizing names would you like?

Let’s get current. Right now, in Canada, there’s an uproar because a brazilian wax place refused to wax a woman’s penis and testicles. If you need to read that 2 or 3 times, it would be understandable.

Are the brazilian waxers evil haters for not being open to the idea of waxing a woman’s penis and testicles? Perhaps they’re racist? How should we dehumanize and malign them for this outrage?

TheDrake

  • All Members
    • View Profile
Re: Deplatforming
« Reply #149 on: July 22, 2019, 06:50:34 PM »
I'm not surprised you can't tell the difference between an employee and a customer. And the difference between a protected class and a stupid ass.