Tech companies are private enterprises just like a bar. And just like a bar can refuse service to anyone outside of a small set of protected classes. If you get kicked out of one bar, just go to another or start your own.
> start your own
...and start your own DDoS protection, DNS hierarchy, payment processor etc. as well? In the context of bars, I have not heard of beer companies, kitchen equipment suppliers, map makers or PoS terminal providers demand that the bar ban a particular customer on threat of refusing to service them, either, so that proposal seems rather more realistic than the one we are actually talking about here.
It absolutely happens in beer companies, kitchen equipment suppliers, etc.
Ex: I doubt you would find a high end distiller advertising that they're sold, especially without a distribution deal, in Mick's Souse Hole, North Etobicoke.
There is all kinds of heavily established strata and bartering lines in all manner of business. That's nothing new at all.
If a given business or client establishes itself as an unworthy partner, no deals are made or existing deals are broken—at least to the limits of the moral stand on either side. In all industries.
It just happens, some businesses, or industries in general, care less to establish moral boundaries than others. But in any industry: "bad for business" is "bad for business"; and "bad for business" is avoided.
I suppose my point beyond talking about beer companies is: this is nothing unique to Twitter et al. Twitter [et al] is just highly visible.
I don't think Jim from Etobicoke, Canada, one eye closed and slobbering, has a case for arguing he should be represented on the Pernod label just because he wants to be. I doubt most people do. But most people don't care what Jim or Pernod do.
It is now the first time it hit a president from a large country. But its not really different from no bank wanna do business with for ex. the porn industry.
While I do not support Trump, I think such segregation (based on race, gender, political views, etc.) is a very dangerous phenomena in the mid/long-term.
B) It is illegal to refuse service on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, age, or disability. It is legal to refuse service on the basis of ‘I don’t like your opinion’.
If I start a bar, I can’t ban people because they’re of a race, from a country, etc. but if there’s a group supporting the overthrow of our government, I absolutely can (and probably would).
You really need to read the comments before replying..
Something needs to be done, certainly. But status quo is not the answer.
Out of all of this, I do have to give Twitter some credit for having/working on a policy to deal with world leaders usage of the platform, even if it's been rough both the last few years and last week or so.
This doesn't bother me, it's well within their right not to be associated with this man. The bigger concern is that we've become so consumed with privately owned social media in the first place
For the betterment of society, I think we might need an amendment that prevents discrimination based on political opinions. Otherwise, two parallel societies of echo chambers will form, and that is not a good thing.
If people go full on economic sanctions war, trying to not sell or to not buy from people with wrong ideologies, everyone can become worse off.
So not allowing economic warfare is a useful guideline for societies who want to resolve their fights in a civilized manner.
Maybe it should be something like: if you are required to do additional custom work specifically for each customer, then you can choose which work to do. But if you are providing the same service to everyone, and you have to do additional work to filter out some types of customers, then you are doing something harmful to society.
I came to a similar conclusion myself. I think that’s probably the way to go. You don’t want to force anyone to do something against their beliefs, but you also want to ensure that society and the market are unified.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/10/uk-supreme-c...
He would not have made that cake for anyone. Twitter on the other hand has no problem carrying much more egregious messages than Trumps, just not for Trump. So not really comparable.
Twitter is no different.
Or if you like the fire analogy, shouting fire while you are by yourself is quite a bit different than doing it in a movie theater.
This is not why Twitter banned Trump: https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/suspensio...
So not sure what the relevance is. But I guess it is not less relevant than the example of the baker.
If people are excluded from services, there should be rational reasons for it and these reasons should be social consensus.
There's also the question of whether Trump is really just being banned for his political opinion, which is precisely one of those protected groups you mentioned (dunno if according to US law, but certainly according to the UDHR)
So, here we have some idiots effective freedom of expression taken away for his political opinions. I'd say that's a pretty obvious human rights violation.
Social media is now the public square, and these tech giants have incredible power to promote or suppress opinions. This isn't analogous to a bar admitting or rejecting clients, that's similar to likening the national debt to household debt; it masks a much more complex and consequential discussion.
If I'm the CEO of Twitter and I want to ban everyone who I don't politically agree with, I should have the sole and absolute right to do so (subject to the board), the same way if I own a bookshop, I get to choose what books I stock.
Very well said. I’m sure the nuances of this will be missed on most, and if we dared say this at work, we’d probably be assumed to be Trump supporters and fired. I’m so worried about where this is going :(