Originally Posted by rhaikh

Originally Posted by Sini
However, the whole point is that you don't want to be reasonable, you want to censor Nazis without owning up to your actions.

I think every organization we've talked about is currently and should continue to be in this category. I think bad actors who overstep...


Good. You are finally being honest. Now lets go down the list of people "who overstep" you want to actively censor. Nazis, racists, southern pride types, MAGA types, pro-Life types, conservative radio talk and Youtube commentators, NYT columnists that refuse to tow the party line... am I forgetting anyone?

Originally Posted by rhaikh

Originally Posted by Sini
These companies should not have the right to refuse service. If we agree that such right ought to exist, then it should also apply to Cake Shops, Catholic Hospitals and so on.

Yes, I absolutely agree. They should all have the right to prevent disruption of their legitimate business interests.


At least you recognized that your previous position on this was inconsistent and now trying to coax it in irrelevant disruption of business concept. Disruption of business is a red herring. The key point is that you are now siding with Masterpiece Cakeshop, however for much broader set of reasons than the US supreme court. You are saying that business should be able to discriminate for any reason whatsoever, because somehow imaginary entities should have more rights than actual humans. What you fail to realize is that you are unwittingly parroting arguments that were used to justify Crow laws.

Obviously, I disagree with you on all points.

Originally Posted by rhaikh

However, you're arguing for the opposite, so I'm trying to get you to explain how that would work. What you're arguing is that these companies 1) should be public accommodations, and that 2) political ideology should be a protected class, and that 3) they additionally don't have a right to refuse service for legitimate business reasons. So let's focus on these points, please, and let's continue with our start on #3.


" they additionally don't have a right to refuse service for legitimate business reasons. " - you are just trying to pile up bullshit to mask deficiencies of your ideas. This is not what I am saying. I am saying that organizations should not have the right to refuse service to protected classes, there is no difference between McCarthyism and hunting for communist sympathizers and modern Regressive Left deplatforming MAGA types. It is exactly the same phenomenon and it is highly detrimental to liberty.

I stated multiple times how I think this should work. 1) Social Media companies are "common carriers" for speech. ISPs and registrars are subject to Net Neutrality. They are not responsible for content and can't censor based on content. 2) yes, in many countries it is explicit and not just case law.



[Linked Image]