The KGB Oracle
Serving the online gaming community since 1997
Visit www.the-kgb.com
For additional information

Join KGB DISCORD: http://discord.gg/KGB
 
KGB Information
Untitled 1

Visit KGB HQ
www.the-kgb.com

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 26 guests, and 31 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
Today's Birthdays
Decon Black
Newest Members
Luckystrikes, Shingen, BillNyeCommieSpy, Lamp, AllenGlines
1,477 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums53
Topics13,094
Posts116,355
Members1,477
Most Online276
Aug 3rd, 2023
Top Likes Received (30 Days)
None yet
Top Posters(30 Days)
Popular Topics(Views)
1,988,697 Trump card
1,324,443 Picture Thread
474,043 Romney
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 19 of 22 1 2 17 18 19 20 21 22
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 784
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***
Offline
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 784
Okay, I'll start by saying that my patience for righting your meandering barge of an argument is running exceptionally low, so this conversation may end soon if you don't pick up your slack.

First:
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.


Yeah, I actually do think every private organization has the right to not be compelled to platform Nazi speech, and I think every organization we've talked about is currently and should continue to be in this category. I think bad actors who overstep are subject to proportionate market forces. 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.

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. The cake shop should not be forced to allow a group of LGBT protesters to sit in the lobby of their store. That is the fundamental comparison. I'd argue that, by nature of the internet, the equivalent of the "lobby" of an online platform company extends to encompass all of their customers. Their customers act and are served in a space immediately adjacent to all of their other business interests.

Originally Posted by Sini
Nobody reasonable would confuse DNS registration with endorsing hate speech


Nobody is arguing that. I said I think social media is compelled to promote speech on their platform, not other companies.

Here's what these companies are saying:

https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/

Quote
The tipping point for us making this decision was that the team behind Daily Stormer made the claim that we were secretly supporters of their ideology.


I think that's a pretty clear action which disrupts their business interests, and they should maintain the right to refuse service to a customer who does this. Why shouldn't they?


BTW:

Originally Posted by Sini
Yes, favorite sources like this den of alt-right thought also known as The New Your Times. For example...

NYT: We're All Fascists Now


I stopped reading at "opinion by Bari Weiss" because that is, in fact, exactly what I was talking about.


[Linked Image]
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Sini Offline OP
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
OP Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
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]
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 784
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***
Offline
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 784
You haven’t addressed my direct question. I’ll address the rest of your noise afterwards. How is Cloudflare’s action discrimination and not protection of their interests through refusal of service?

If you disagree with that, then you have to describe why these services are held to a higher standard than a regular business who can 86 disruptive customers despite their protected classes. If sued, the courts make this judgement call to decide if the business acted responsibly or with discrimination. To disagree, you’re saying these companies should not have this right and should never be allowed to do this, so you should provide a basis for what a company can do to lose this right.

Last edited by rhaikh; 01/20/19 10:44 AM.

[Linked Image]
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Sini Offline OP
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
OP Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Again, your "disruptive customers" is a load of hooey. Advocating white supremacy does not interfere in any way with DNS registration. If you run a cake shop and refuse to talk and eject people based on sexual orientation you will be in the exact same boat as Masterpiece Cakeshop, because it doesn't matter if you are refusing to make cake, or putting up targeted ToS, or simply put "Whites Only" sign on the door - you are still discriminating based on protected characteristic.

For your argument to be valid you need to demonstrate that refusing to register DNS for supremacists is substantially different from refusing to bake a cake for homosexual wedding. Let me suggest possible approach - you could argue that homosexual couples have no control over their sexuality, while supremacists could choose to abandon their ideas. Such argument would be a lot more coherent than what you are trying to do.


[Linked Image]
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 784
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***
Offline
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 784
With utmost respect, it seems like you don't understand how the current law works. You are simultaneously arguing two points, #2 and #3 I listed above. Please, one at a time, happy to debate #2 next. Please do your own research until you agree that the following statement is factual: Businesses may refuse service to customers, unless doing so can be considered an act of discrimination. There are lots of edge cases embedded in this topic, but without you having a clear understanding of how this line gets drawn, it doesn't seem like we can continue this conversation. The cake shop was found to be on the wrong side of that "unless."

The only other explanation I can imagine for your rhetoric is that you believe NO businesses should have ANY right to refuse service, but formally make that case if that's your intention.


[Linked Image]
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Sini Offline OP
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
OP Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
I didn't intend to be cryptic, and what I wrote is clear to me... so lets try to clear up possible confusion.

As a business owner, can I refuse service to any customers. Unless I am public utility and have "duty to serve". Unless I refuse service for discriminatory reasons.

For example, a cake shop can refuse to bake cake for Bob. A cake shop cannot refuse to bake cake for Bob because Bob is gay. Or because Bob is too old, or because Bob is pregnant, or because Bob is from a shithole state. Federally, refusing to bake cake for Bob because he is Democrat is permissible. Some states have specific laws that may say otherwise. More states have laws that make it illegal to fire Bob from cake shop for being Democrat than refuse to bake cake for being Democrat.

Does this help clarify this?


[Linked Image]
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 784
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***
Offline
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 784
Clear. Now, how does that relate to the Cloudflare example? They claim they did not terminate service due to holding an ideology, which you argue should be a protected class, they terminated based on disruptive action. It could be argued that this particular termination (or really, any termination) was a pretense for discrimination (but I doubt any judge would agree, and that's why these companies don't face endless litigation already). It's the right of the business to terminate when they feel it's in their best interests and argue for it if challenged on grounds of discrimination. Why don't they deserve this right?


[Linked Image]
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Sini Offline OP
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
OP Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Do you think that Cloudflare's claim of being disrupted is credible? I don't because I can't think of any way how existence of any website could disrupt their business. However, it is fair to say that such determination ought to be made in courts. The issue is that Cloudflare behavior, even if proven to be politically motivated, isn't illegal. It ought to be.


[Linked Image]
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 784
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***
Offline
KGB Champion - Taco Salad
***
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 784
As I said before, I think if any company was shown to openly embrace the ideology of white supremacy, they would be subjected to significant market pressure (B2B and B2C) - I'm certain Cloudflare would have lost significant customer base if they continued a business relationship while Stormfront was promoting the idea that Cloudflare was ideologically aligned. They said as much. Some more info on this if you want to read it. https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-issue-cloudflare/

I think a very similar calculus was performed at the rest of the companies you accuse of engaging in "censorship." They decided to make terminations based on disruptive behavior, instead of allowing the market to act on a perceived warmth towards an unpalatable ideology through their inaction.

So now we have a (second) clear framework and remedy for your objections. The companies are free to take action to protect their business, and those "censored" should sue to prove discrimination. (The first remedy being to simply work with companies who are favorable to the ideology). This is an entirely separate concept from a "duty to serve," so I'm glad we've made progress on that also. Unfortunately, this still requires that holding an ideology itself is a protected class.

---

I'll be honest, I'm not really sure if it should be a protected class or not. I understand the fear of oppression driving your argument, and I recognize that oppression is typically the reason we adopt anti-discrimination classes. However it's important to note that this is mainly a fear and not a widespread reality, like it was for the rest of the protected classes. These laws are an absolute necessity (at the moment) for them. (Just as an aside, I really did not appreciate your rhetoric that conflated my trepidation here with uncertainty around existing anti-discrimination laws. I mean I think you've made some effort here to silence whatever gerbil is running through your head trying to turn everything I say into the most extreme strawman argument, but some progress remains to be gained apparently.)

Having said that, I can clearly see the harm in allowing it to be a protected class. First is that it is obviously a demonstration of the content of your character, which I believe is reasonable grounds for judgement. On top of this, there is a legitimate slippery slope argument to be made. For example, holding Nazi ideology clearly conflicts with the anti-discrimination rights of others. So you fire a Nazi, and a court decides that was the right move because the others in the room would face greater harm through his presence. What if he said, actually, I'm a rainbow Nazi and I think white men are superior, but everyone else is welcome in my tent as a 2nd class citizen and would otherwise be guaranteed freedom from discrimination. After all, there doesn't seem to be much of a standard of proof that your stated ideology is equivalent to your actual beliefs, or even real.

Changing that to "affiliation" instead of "ideology" would do some work to prevent this. Adding a caveat that your protected affiliation can't be fundamentally based on discrimination against other classes would also do some work. (It would also invalidate your examples further, because they wouldn't meet these qualifications.)

If I were making the rules today, I'd probably throw it out, along with religious protection. I think the necessity for anti-discrimination based on religion, in this century, is mostly covered under race/ethnicity. I think, some century in the future, the notion that racial discrimination laws are necessary might also become debatable. As an aside, I think that there's an argument to be made in favor of religious protection, in that it's possible for it to NOT require advocacy for systemic change / be entirely personal. I think that distinction should be considered along with applying this protection.

I think in DC (where they use the term affiliation), it makes some sense for local reasons.

I think in Seattle (where they use the term ideology), it's ridiculous and largely solves a problem they didn't have, and creates new ones in the process. There's talk of repealing it.

What I'm sure of is that for this to be adopted, it would require pretty wide support across the spectrum. A constitutional amendment, supermajority realm of support. Given my arguments above, I just don't see us there yet. I can't find any evidence of existing broad support.


[Linked Image]
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Sini Offline OP
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
OP Offline
KGB Supreme Court Justice
KGB Paladin
King's High Council
**
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,528
Likes: 10
Related news - Bloomberg: Google is asking for permission to ban organizing of their employees

This is rather insidious, as Google will be able to censor its own employees on anything run by Google.


[Linked Image]
Page 19 of 22 1 2 17 18 19 20 21 22

Moderated by  Derid 

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5