9 ms·

I understand that companies want to avoid getting into legal complications over it, and that's why I think there should be some sort of legislation in place to

I understand that companies want to avoid getting into legal complications over it, and that's why I think there should be some sort of legislation in place to force companies to explain decisions like this. This is becoming more and more important with time. Something like: If you end your contract with someone because you think that they were in violation of the terms, you have to clearly list what your reasoning is for it, with no tolerance for black box answers. DMCA takedown requests include the list of offending URLs. This should be made similar. "We terminated our contract because this, this, and this signal, make us think that you're in violation of its terms". You can then appeal, and obviously if the two parties can't come to an agreement by themselves, you can at least use the legal system. Otherwise, we're living in a world where contracts between two parties mean nothing. Anyone can pull out of anything at any time for any reason, with no notice.

thr0wawayf00 4y ago
How would something like that work? If a company gets demonetized and provides an answer that you don't think is satisfactory, then what? All you'd be doing in this case is creating another opportunity for a lawyer to put out some legalese BS.
blantonl 4y ago
Otherwise, we're living in a world where contracts between two parties mean nothing. Anyone can pull out of anything at any time for any reason, with no notice. Not if the contract stipulates that both parties must agree to unwind the relationship. We already live in a world where anyone can pull out of anything at any time for any reason, with no notice - however if the contract says you can't do that then you open yourself up to legal liability. That doesn't stop most folks.
alldayeveryday 4y ago
The problem there is that the terms are often ambiguous, and thus an explanation of how the terms were violated will be ambiguous. "Some sort of legislation ... to force companies to explain decisions ..." will be useless unless the terms are unambiguous. Look for example at youtube where there is a lot of subjective wiggle room in their definition of acceptable content. Let's face it, the decisions of Paypal and others (Youtube, Twitter, etc) when deciding who stays and who goes on its platform are ideologically and politically motivated. The leaders of these companies are basing their decisions on their own political leanings. And in the vast majority of cases like the Daily Sceptic where a user or service is being deplatformed, the reason is idealogical (rather than a case where the user is for example defrauding the platform or service provider). I believe a better solution would be for the government to penalize companies that are repressive to the rights granted to us in the bill of rights (for example free speech). This whole "but it is a private company who gets to dictate what speech they want and don't want on their site" needs to go out the window. If a company wants to operate within the US, it needs to respect the rights of the country's population (rather than define its own set of rights).
- markdown 4y ago
  You can't force me to host your content if I don't like your content. I don't care what rights you think you have. It's my server and I decide what goes on it.
  - dougabug 4y ago
    Exactly so. Your decision not to host certain content you find odious is a valid exercise of your freedom of speech, as well as your freedom of association.
  - FpUser 4y ago
    There are special rules for a public companies. I do not see any reason why dominant platforms should not be prevented from terminating customer's accounts for anything that is legal. Alternatively we would have a society which democratic by name but where your life is controlled by few big corporations. Looks like we are heading there anyways.
    - mynameisvlad 4y ago
      Private corporations are not the government. We’ve done fine with the current rights and freedoms, applied to governments only, for the past 200 years. I think we’ll manage for another few.
      - FpUser 4y ago
        >"Private corporations are not the government." With all lobbying power? Yeah sure. Also publicly traded companies that are also near monopolies are not really "private companies". They have way too much power over people's lives. >"We’ve done fine with the current rights and freedoms" No we have not and what rights we have are deteriorating
        mynameisvlad 4y ago
        > With all lobbying power? Yeah sure. Also publicly traded companies that are also near monopolies are not really "private companies". They have way too much power over people's lives. None of that makes them the government or makes the rights and freedoms associated with the BoR applicable to them. They are also not a monopoly or anywhere near one. Many payment processors exist, as evidenced by the fact that literally even in the article itself the author mentions that any non-PayPal subscription is still active. Or the comment which shows a brand new one that seems to be targeted towards “free speech bastions” like this. > No we have not and what rights we have are deteriorating Source. Especially on the latter, which you clearly see this as.
possiblydrunk 4y ago
Yes, this! Perfectly stated. Why can't this be codified in law?
strken 4y ago
I think that would end in a situation similar to parallel construction, where people end the contract for reasons that are basically "we don't like you" but find some token violation to blame, helped by very loosely defined contracts that don't clearly define what is and isn't a violation.
killingtime74 4y ago
I assume you are not a lawyer. Anyone can pull out of a contract for any reason. You can then get sued for damages and in specific scenarios (property sales for example), specific performance. Most scenarios do not allow a remedy of specific performance. So in general if you pay, you can walk away. For example you can’t hold someone to their employment contract and force them to work for you. An example of a massive walkaway https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-61770012 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-61770012. You think they wouldn’t try to enforce the contract if they could? I’m an Australian lawyer, although this is first year level knowledge.
concinds 4y ago
This is completely misunderstanding the problem. https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full > PayPal [...] reserves the right to suspend or terminate [...] access [...] for any reason and at any time upon notice to you... PayPal never said they broke any terms. PayPal has openly declared war on "hate groups", as defined by the ADL, which is an organization funded by the U.S. oligarchy[0][1]. That's the reason. PayPal is on the side of the political establishment that is interested in consolidating power and manufacturing consent. Corporate and government power have merged a long time ago; it's not gonna reverse itself. Liberals need to read Popper's Open Society and its Enemies, and realize that oligarchy is just as big a threat as fascism, if not bigger due to the population not being innoculated against it (https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1039842312061374464 https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1039842312061374464). [0]: https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/paypal-partners-with-adl-to-fight-extremism-and-protect-marginalized https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/paypal-partners-with... [1]: https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/anti-defamation-league/#funding https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/anti-defamation-le... (J.P. Morgan, hello!)
- Akronymus 4y ago
  > ADL Of course they'd be involved. ADL has long ceased to be independant and has become an arm of politicians.
  - languageserver 4y ago
    https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbol/pepe-frog https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbol/pepe-frog
    - Kye 4y ago
      >> "The majority of uses of Pepe the Frog have been, and continue to be, non-bigoted." >> "However, because so many Pepe the Frog memes are not bigoted in nature, it is important to examine use of the meme only in context. The mere fact of posting a Pepe meme does not mean that someone is racist or white supremacist." That's a much more balanced take than I would have.
sneedem 4y ago
Bitcoin and crypto currency unironically solve this

thr0wawayf00 4y ago

How would something like that work? If a company gets demonetized and provides an answer that you don't think is satisfactory, then what? All you'd be doing in this case is creating another opportunity for a lawyer to put out some legalese BS.

blantonl 4y ago

Otherwise, we're living in a world where contracts between two parties mean nothing. Anyone can pull out of anything at any time for any reason, with no notice. Not if the contract stipulates that both parties must agree to unwind the relationship. We already live in a world where anyone can pull out of anything at any time for any reason, with no notice - however if the contract says you can't do that then you open yourself up to legal liability. That doesn't stop most folks.

alldayeveryday 4y ago

The problem there is that the terms are often ambiguous, and thus an explanation of how the terms were violated will be ambiguous. "Some sort of legislation ... to force companies to explain decisions ..." will be useless unless the terms are unambiguous. Look for example at youtube where there is a lot of subjective wiggle room in their definition of acceptable content. Let's face it, the decisions of Paypal and others (Youtube, Twitter, etc) when deciding who stays and who goes on its platform are ideologically and politically motivated. The leaders of these companies are basing their decisions on their own political leanings. And in the vast majority of cases like the Daily Sceptic where a user or service is being deplatformed, the reason is idealogical (rather than a case where the user is for example defrauding the platform or service provider). I believe a better solution would be for the government to penalize companies that are repressive to the rights granted to us in the bill of rights (for example free speech). This whole "but it is a private company who gets to dictate what speech they want and don't want on their site" needs to go out the window. If a company wants to operate within the US, it needs to respect the rights of the country's population (rather than define its own set of rights).

markdown 4y ago
You can't force me to host your content if I don't like your content. I don't care what rights you think you have. It's my server and I decide what goes on it.
- dougabug 4y ago
  Exactly so. Your decision not to host certain content you find odious is a valid exercise of your freedom of speech, as well as your freedom of association.
- FpUser 4y ago
  There are special rules for a public companies. I do not see any reason why dominant platforms should not be prevented from terminating customer's accounts for anything that is legal. Alternatively we would have a society which democratic by name but where your life is controlled by few big corporations. Looks like we are heading there anyways.
  - mynameisvlad 4y ago
    Private corporations are not the government. We’ve done fine with the current rights and freedoms, applied to governments only, for the past 200 years. I think we’ll manage for another few.
    - FpUser 4y ago
      >"Private corporations are not the government." With all lobbying power? Yeah sure. Also publicly traded companies that are also near monopolies are not really "private companies". They have way too much power over people's lives. >"We’ve done fine with the current rights and freedoms" No we have not and what rights we have are deteriorating
      - mynameisvlad 4y ago
        > With all lobbying power? Yeah sure. Also publicly traded companies that are also near monopolies are not really "private companies". They have way too much power over people's lives. None of that makes them the government or makes the rights and freedoms associated with the BoR applicable to them. They are also not a monopoly or anywhere near one. Many payment processors exist, as evidenced by the fact that literally even in the article itself the author mentions that any non-PayPal subscription is still active. Or the comment which shows a brand new one that seems to be targeted towards “free speech bastions” like this. > No we have not and what rights we have are deteriorating Source. Especially on the latter, which you clearly see this as.

possiblydrunk 4y ago

Yes, this! Perfectly stated. Why can't this be codified in law?

strken 4y ago

I think that would end in a situation similar to parallel construction, where people end the contract for reasons that are basically "we don't like you" but find some token violation to blame, helped by very loosely defined contracts that don't clearly define what is and isn't a violation.

killingtime74 4y ago

I assume you are not a lawyer. Anyone can pull out of a contract for any reason. You can then get sued for damages and in specific scenarios (property sales for example), specific performance. Most scenarios do not allow a remedy of specific performance. So in general if you pay, you can walk away. For example you can’t hold someone to their employment contract and force them to work for you. An example of a massive walkaway https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-61770012 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-61770012. You think they wouldn’t try to enforce the contract if they could? I’m an Australian lawyer, although this is first year level knowledge.

concinds 4y ago

This is completely misunderstanding the problem. https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full https://www.paypal.com/us/webapps/mpp/ua/useragreement-full > PayPal [...] reserves the right to suspend or terminate [...] access [...] for any reason and at any time upon notice to you... PayPal never said they broke any terms. PayPal has openly declared war on "hate groups", as defined by the ADL, which is an organization funded by the U.S. oligarchy[0][1]. That's the reason. PayPal is on the side of the political establishment that is interested in consolidating power and manufacturing consent. Corporate and government power have merged a long time ago; it's not gonna reverse itself. Liberals need to read Popper's Open Society and its Enemies, and realize that oligarchy is just as big a threat as fascism, if not bigger due to the population not being innoculated against it (https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1039842312061374464 https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1039842312061374464). [0]: https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/paypal-partners-with-adl-to-fight-extremism-and-protect-marginalized https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/paypal-partners-with... [1]: https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/anti-defamation-league/#funding https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/anti-defamation-le... (J.P. Morgan, hello!)

Akronymus 4y ago
> ADL Of course they'd be involved. ADL has long ceased to be independant and has become an arm of politicians.
- languageserver 4y ago
  https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbol/pepe-frog https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbol/pepe-frog
  - Kye 4y ago
    >> "The majority of uses of Pepe the Frog have been, and continue to be, non-bigoted." >> "However, because so many Pepe the Frog memes are not bigoted in nature, it is important to examine use of the meme only in context. The mere fact of posting a Pepe meme does not mean that someone is racist or white supremacist." That's a much more balanced take than I would have.

sneedem 4y ago

Bitcoin and crypto currency unironically solve this