"We don't serve colored folks here."
I kinda think you're the one not considering repercussions of allowing these platforms to drive social norms.
If your opinion holds so much water then you should welcome the opportunity to have public discourse with someone who thinks differently.
What I hear when someone supports removing speech is just fear. Fear that their specific opinion won't stand up against someone else's.
Regardless of whether there's a legal way to stop these platforms from their current crusade I don't' see how any one can morally support what they're doing.
I generally think that private organizations and individuals should not be held to that same requirement.
I think the Internet should be a utility, and ISPs should not be able to deny you access to the Internet. I think that Twitter should have the same right to deny service that my local bar does, which is to say, they can discriminate as long as it's not against a protected class.
Ok then explain to me why it's ok for these politicians to celebrate removal and de-platforming of individuals and post about it on social media? I'd also like to know why they're allowed to have hearings asking when certain platforms are going to ban specific rival politicians?
>I think the Internet should be a utility, and ISPs should not be able to deny you access to the Internet. I think that Twitter should have the same right to deny service that my local bar does, which is to say, they can discriminate as long as it's not against a protected class.
Explain? Why one and not the other? ISP's are businesses too. What I'm seeing when you write this is basically that you'd like to hold businesses you dislike to different standards that ones you don't. I assume you're ok with the social media stuff because it's catering to your opinions currently. You need to ask yourself if Trump had a stranglehold on Silicon Valley like the left currently does would you still be ok with your views?
Additionally, once private businesses reach a point where they're too big and they control too much market share they need to be held to different standards. You mentioned ISP's this is exactly what's happened with them. They all start working in coercion just like the handful of big tech companies have. There are no competitors without building a entirely separate infrastructure now.
because they're just speaking (which is protected), the government did not actually remove or de-platform anyone.
> why they're allowed to have hearings
same as above.
> Why one and not the other?
For the same reason I think "roads" and "endpoints on the road" are different. For the same reason I think "electricity" and "water" should be utilities. It's a pipe. I just think they're different things.
You're not following what I'm saying. They're explicitly coercing companies into doing things due to the fact they can bring down real repercussions if they do not. The government is using big tech as a middle man to do their bidding and silence "bad" speech. That, is in fact the same as doing it themselves, therefore stomping all over the 1st amendment.
Just because Pablo Escobar uses mules and dealers to peddle his drugs doesn't mean he's not guilty.
Although, if you change your statement to "implicitly coercing companies", you may be actually fairly accurate, I just don't think that is a bad thing, it happens all the time.
Not that the Florida law holds merit. Just that the irony here is lost to most people.
Additionally I did not state I want anyone removed from social media, I just stated that private companies are allowed to censor over things that dont fall under a protected status.
So, essentially you're telling people they should stop thinking the way they do and think the way you want them to?
Would you apply this to trans people as well? I'm trying to figure out where your line is. Basically if it's an external physical attribute then discrimination is bad but if it's mental then discrimination is fine and dandy? Does this apply to homosexuality, religion, cultural attitudes etc?
I just don't understand the inability of people to see what happens when they give so much power away. That power does not disappear when the next POTUS appears.
These tech companies will 100% change with the wind, in fact, they already do it for China. They're only doing these things to garner favor from the current administration in hopes of staying away from any regulation. There's nothing altruistic about their behavior at all.
(Is the above also an argument that religious affiliation shouldn't be a protected class? Yes. Unpopular opinion that I hold, and I'll take the heat for it.)
I'm sure plenty of people dislike associating with lgbtq people and people of different race, religion etc.
With regards to other protected classes- gender, race, religion, country of origin- the people belonging to those classes are so broad that you cannot make generalizations about them like that. When I see a dude wearing a swastika, I can, in my opinion, make some pretty accurate generalizations about them. Again, complain about the case I picked if you want, but all other political beliefs are just a watered down version of this example. Pick a guy wearing a "kill all the white people" shirt if you want, I refuse to advocate for any law or proposal that would force a white guy to serve him a beer.
Just to get a better understanding.... homosexuals, trans, black, muslim, asian etc. All free to ban too right?
Muslims are members of a religion. Discrimination based on religion is illegal, same as above.
In 2020 the Supreme Court ruled that the CRA64 also covered sexual orientation and gender identity, making discrimination based on being homosexual and transgender illegal.
"Opinion, political belief, or political affiliation" is not a protected class, so it is legal to discriminate against people for those reasons. And, in my opinion, it is actually GOOD to discriminate against people for those reasons. It is an expression of ones First Amendment Freedom of Association.
Yes and it wasn't illegal for a long time so what's your point here?
>In 2020 the Supreme Court ruled that the CRA64 also covered sexual orientation and gender identity, making discrimination based on being homosexual and transgender illegal.
Thanks for agreeing that you can add protections to different classes.
> And, in my opinion, it is actually GOOD to discriminate against people for those reasons.
No it's not "good" to discriminate in the way you're referring to it by shutting down what they say. It's good to present your differing opinion and put it out there so people can decide whether they agree. A lot people really thought discriminating based on skin color was "good" too.
If someone engages in speech I disagree with, I don't want the government to punish them for it. That does not mean I think bad speech should have no repercussions- I just think those repercussions should be in the private realm, in the hands of private citizens and private organizations.
In case it isn't clear, I'd sooner do away with all protected classes than add "Nazi" to the list.
You seem to be confused about what the double standard is. They are not being banned and neither are the several dictators using the platforms to promote violence.
The platforms are free to ban dictators in the US and other groups in the US that incite violence with conspiracy theories. That is well within their rights, and it is even a public service to do so.
It's worth noting, though, that while I'm not allowed to ban Muslims from my bible study forum site, I'd be well within my rights to prohibit them (and anyone else) from evangelizing islam there.
Regarding my personal opinion, I think they should be allowed to deny service to who they want as its a core feature of the business. I think this is different than a say black / white restricted eating areas as the core feature of those business' is to feed people, not to facilitate personal race / sexuality based interactions. Just my opinion though I am sure there are edge cases that would make me pause.