Hacker News Reader

Comment by netwanderer3 | Hacker News Reader

On paper, this is not really wrong. You can't force a shop owner to sell his products to you if he doesn't want to. Similarly, I just don't have the rights in forcing you to sell your house to me. I'm sure services like Netflix or Disney Plus are probably still not available in some countries. If you visit their website from those places, you would likely get a service denial message. It's within Google's rights to offer/withdraw their services to any places they wish.

Having said that, maybe there was a better solution they could have implemented instead. Something like this should only be the very last choice on the list after exhausting all other options.

View on HN

> You can't force a shop owner to sell his products to you if he doesn't want to.

The very first article of the Dutch constitution actually says that people have to be treated equally in equal cases. If you live in a country with a similar principle, do you know how this works with someone refusing to do business with you? If they sell to your peer, wouldn't they have to have a reason for not selling to you (i.e. to indicate that the case is unequal)?

A reason like creditworthiness or "looking like you won't pay the bill" may or may not be sufficient, I'm not questioning which reasons may be used. I'm just wondering if it's true that a shop can indeed refuse someone for no reason at all.

For those who are curious about the phrasing, source (in Dutch unfortunately): https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001840/2018-12-21

In the US, our laws don't provide blanket protection, as it appears they do in the Netherlands. We do protect certain classes of people in some circumstances. Generally, these classes are race, religion, national origin, age, sex, and disability. There are a few others, depending on which state and what circumstances.

This leads us to (IMO) ridiculous legal cases where a baker refuses to serve a gay couple, or a toy store with Christian owners refuses to abide by some employment laws.

> The very first article of the Dutch constitution actually says that people have to be treated equally in equal cases.

Is that supposed to apply to the Dutch government? Or to everyone? Constitutions normally say what the government can and can't do; they don't normally directly tell ordinary citizens what they can and can't do.

Are you sure what is normative for Constitutions? I suppose in this case normally just means in most cases.

I'm not making any claim about what is "normative" in the sense of being somehow "legal" vs. "not legal" for Constitutions. I'm just curious what the actual application of the Dutch Constitution is.

Not sure if even most. Just checked our constitution. While in most articles it doesn't order or forbid people to do specific things, there are dozens of rules and rights, which apply to .. I guess anyone in scope, many of which seem quite pointless if they only applied to the government.

> there are dozens of rules and rights

The US Constitution has a Bill of Rights, which applies to everyone in the sense that everyone has those rights, but which only applies to the government in the sense that the government is the one the Constitution says can't violate those rights. For example, the 1st Amendment says the government can't infringe freedom of speech. It does not say that everyone is guaranteed the same platform to speak from, nor does it require particular private entities to provide a speaking platform to anyone who asks for it.

Saying "people have to be treated equally in equal cases" sounds like the same kind of thing: if the US Constitution had such a provision, I would expect it to work the same as the 1st Amendment, i.e., requiring the government to treat people equally in equal cases, not requiring private entities to do so. But the Dutch Constitution might work differently, which is why I asked.

I know discrimination is illegal in general (the government, companies, and individuals are all not allowed to discriminate), and I assume that comes from this article since the second sentence mentions religion and skin color specifically, so then I assume the first sentence of this article should also apply to everyone equally. But that's just conjecture, I'm not a lawyer.

Right, if they sell to Dutch, they must not discriminate which Dutch.

You can’t force a foreign company to sell on Dutch soil _at all_ if they don’t want in, period.

I was not necessarily referring to international transactions, just curious about what the person wrote since I indeed also believe that to be true (also in the Netherlands) even though I separately learned of this part of the constitution that (now that I put two and two together) seems contradictory, at least within the Netherlands. Since there are quite a few Dutch people here, I figured someone might know.

> You can't force a shop owner to sell his products to you if he doesn't want to.

Yes you can, for example in cases of racial segregation.

But this refusal seems to be based on anti-trust regulation and it seems that Turkey won't be able to further penalize Google for this. People seem to be upset that a company can refuse to comply with the law and showing a sovereign government the finger.

But there is even a precedent for this: Google also refused to cooperate with Chinese search censorship and retreated from that market.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com