8 ms·
Sounds Orwellian
by skindoe 6y ago
Sounds Orwellian
- msbarnett 6y agoSounds like a private enterprise deciding what they want on their property, to me.
- andrenth 6y agoSo like, say, a cake shop?
- msbarnett 6y agoSure, exactly like that. People who believe there’s a vast conspiracy of celebrities to drain “adrenochrome” from children to gain eternal life or whatever aren’t a protected class, after all.
- andrenth 6y agoYou’re saying a private company is allowed to decide who they want on their property. This must hold for all private companies, no?
- msbarnett 6y agoYes, provided they are not deciding on the basis of someone belonging to a protected class. Hence a cake maker can cheerfully refuse your business on the basis of you wanting a cake that says “Jennifer Garner Eats Babies” but not on the basis of you, say, being homosexual, or Black.
- andrenth 6y agoThat means I can refuse servicing you based on, for example, the clothes you’re wearing, right? Or maybe because I don’t like your hair? As far as I know people with bad hair is not a protected class. I’m trying to figure out how do you know the basis on which some private enterprise decided to refuse to provide their service to someone. Is it based on their stated reason?
- catalogia 6y agoFor better or worse, many restaurants have dress codes.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- andrenth 6y agoBut the restaurant is required to be consistent applying it, no? Can they refuse service because you’re not wearing a tie while simultaneously serving the guy in flip flops?
- krapp 6y ago>But the restaurant is required to be consistent applying it, no? IANAL but I don't think so. In the US at least, they can't be inconsistent in a way that correlates to persecuting a protected class (refusing service based on race for instance) but otherwise they have the right - often explicitly displayed on signage to patrons on entry - to be able to refuse service to anyone for any reason.
- c0nducktr 6y agoIf that's the case, night clubs have been violating that rule for ages.
- msbarnett 6y ago> I’m trying to figure out how do you know the basis on which some private enterprise decided to refuse to provide their service to someone. If you’re trying to understand the basis by which courts figure this stuff out, what we’re talking about here is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is civil law, and the evidentiary standard that applies is “preponderance of evidence”. The businesses’ stated reason is certainly one piece of evidence that courts weigh, but it’s far from the only one. If you refuse me business based on what I’m wearing, but I can show you regular do business with people wearing the same thing, or I can demonstrate a preponderance of evidence that you knew I was homosexual and had made statements to the effect that you would refuse to serve homosexuals, courts aren’t going to just take you at your word.
- flutterdude420 6y agoDoes it? There are other privately owned platforms you can use to accuse Hilary Clinton of pedophaelic blood rituals and satanic mind control. When Ingsoc comes in to ban reporters from asking unflattering questions at presidential news conferences then maybe we can talk.
- exogeny 6y agoGood thing many alternatives exist!
- skindoe 6y agoWhat if Google and Twitter deside that those "alternatives" are hateful for disagreeing politically and stop linking them on their platforms making it extremely difficult/impossible to find them?
- Apocryphon 6y agoWhat does Google have to do with this discussion about Twitter?
- thephyber 6y agoI think your parent is talking about Twitter, Google and the other internet platforms and infrastructure.
- shadowgovt 6y agoThen people can type in domain names directly. This isn't a hard problem to solve.
- bluedispatcher 6y agoThis is a disingenuous argument. When all mainstream platforms decide that your opinion is not welcome, your only real alternative becomes either silence or small echo chambers where you're more likely to enter into radical feedback loops. This is not healthy for our societies. Historically, public spaces have been used to confront ideas. Free speech isn't a luxury, it's a necessity that ensures our societies don't devolve into radicalized micro bubbles that are more likely to resort to violence. The issue that we're facing is that the public space is being replaced by the virtual private space, which doesn't have such guarantees. We're already seeing the effect of such divisiveness already, and it's only going to get worse. So should we just accept that free speech is dead? I don't think that's the right direction.
- shadowgovt 6y agoIt's not because there are alternatives. People keep forgetting that 1984 assumes a singular authoritarian control, not multiple authorities and the freedom to choose one, several, or none of them.
- pix64 6y agoIf you're interested in hateful content stormfront is the next door down