Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In Support of Free Speech

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–119 of 119 posts

Re: In Support of Free Speech

#111

Post by yellowapple »

mikeash wrote: post #107
yellowapple wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The extra legalese is usually a CYA. They can reserve the right to remove "offensive" content without necessarily exercising that right.

Well sure. But if your policy really is "anything that's legal" then there's no need to CYA. The only reason you'd have that clause in the first place is if you thought you might want to remove legal but offensive content. Imagine if someone made a big deal about being inclusive of all races, but their TOS said, "We reserve the right to kick out black people." Nothing says they have to exercise that right....

The CYA is there in case the policy changes for some reason.

It's kind of like those "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" signs you see in mom and pop shops. Just because they reserve the right doesn't mean they're going to exercise it.

Re: In Support of Free Speech

#112

Post by tomp »

paulgb wrote: post #99
tomp wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you point to any examples of hate speech by Breitbart?

"If for no other reasons than manners and aesthetics, we ought to think about shoving the next generation [of gays] back into Narnia." Yes, I know Milo is gay, doesn't mean this isn't advocating violence against a group of people, fitting most definitions of hate speech. I feel dirty linking to the article but you can google it for the source.

This [1] is a pretty tongue-in-cheek article (the quip about anal sex was particularly funny), but given that his main point seems to be that gays are smarter than average, so they should have more kids, I just cannot possibly interpret the above quote (or any other part of the article) as advocating violence...

[1] http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/17/gay-right...

Re: In Support of Free Speech

#113

Post by mikeash »

yellowapple wrote: post #111
mikeash wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well sure. But if your policy really is "anything that's legal" then there's no need to CYA. The only reason you'd have that clause in the first place is if you thought you might want to remove legal but offensive content. Imagine if someone made a big deal about being inclusive of all races, but their TOS said, "We reserve the right to kick out black people." Nothing says they have to exercise that right....

The CYA is there in case the policy changes for some reason. It's kind of like those "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" signs you see in mom and pop shops. Just because they reserve the right doesn't mean they're going to exercise it.

There's a difference between a blanket CYA like that which is totally general, and a version that calls out specific reasons like this.

Would you consider a "We reserve the right to refuse service to black people" clause to be a benign CYA, or would you consider that maybe this clause is in conflict with a supposed policy of no racial discrimination?

Re: In Support of Free Speech

#114

Post by yellowapple »

mikeash wrote: post #113
yellowapple wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The CYA is there in case the policy changes for some reason. It's kind of like those "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" signs you see in mom and pop shops. Just because they reserve the right doesn't mean they're going to exercise it.

There's a difference between a blanket CYA like that which is totally general, and a version that calls out specific reasons like this. Would you consider a "We reserve the right to refuse service to black people" clause to be a benign CYA, or would you consider that maybe this clause is in conflict with a supposed policy of no racial discrimination?

In that particular case, I reckon such a clause would run afoul of various regulations prohibiting discrimination against a protected class (specifically, a racial/ethnic minority). Thus, there's no "right to refuse service to black people" to reserve.

That aside, my point is that this is a very common clause for online businesses, and the existence of such a clause - again - does not mean it has to be enforced. Plenty of companies add all sorts of things to their terms of service / privacy policies / EULAs / etc. to cover all sorts of contingencies, and this seems very ordinary and mundane in that context.

Re: In Support of Free Speech

#115

Post by lightedman »

grzm wrote: post #93
lightedman wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your guidelines don't cover obvious bias in the headline as it exists without modification. If you couldn't see the bias off the bat, make room for those who do, please, so this site may continue to improve unlike the rest.

Please bear with me, as I'm honestly having a hard time figuring out what you mean here. Your guidelines don't cover obvious bias in the headline as it exists without modification. Does this mean that you think the actual article title "In Support of Free Speech" includes obvious bias? Or that the title submitted by 'jletroui, "Shopify refuses to censor Breitbart", includes obvious bias? If the former, I don't see th…

"Does this mean that you think the actual article title "In Support of Free Speech" includes obvious bias?"

If you can't see the ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS POLITICAL BIAS, then I think you've got problems you need to have checked.

Re: In Support of Free Speech

#116

Post by grzm »

lightedman wrote: post #115
grzm wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please bear with me, as I'm honestly having a hard time figuring out what you mean here. Your guidelines don't cover obvious bias in the headline as it exists without modification. Does this mean that you think the actual article title "In Support of Free Speech" includes obvious bias? Or that the title submitted by 'jletroui, "Shopify refuses to censor Breitbart", includes obvious bias? If the former, I don't see th…

"Does this mean that you think the actual article title "In Support of Free Speech" includes obvious bias?" If you can't see the ABSOLUTELY OBVIOUS POLITICAL BIAS, then I think you've got problems you need to have checked.

It's clearly a political piece, written from a particular point of view, so in that sense you could consider the piece biased. The title accurately represents the intent of the piece.

For the title to be biased in the sense that it requires modification would mean that it is in some way either misrepresenting the piece (i.e., click bait) or misrepresenting facts. "In Support of Free Speech" is doing neither. If you're of the opinion that that Shopify's stance is wrong, that's fine, but that doesn't mean that the title of the piece is wrong or biased in a way that requires updating. Shopify's position is one where people disagree, as is abundantly clear from this (and similar) threads.

At this point it's pretty clear we're at best talking past each other, and as there's not much else I have to say on this topic, I'll leave it at that.

Re: In Support of Free Speech

#117

Post by ZeroFries »

abpavel wrote: post #91
notcolin wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Lütke's attempt to paint this as a defense of free speech is disingenuous Is it? "To kick off a merchant is to censor ideas and interfere with the free exchange of products at the core of commerce. When we kick off a merchant, we’re asserting our own moral code as the superior one. But who gets to define that moral code? Where would it begin and end? Who gets to decide what can be sold and what can’t? If we start b…

So you're saying that Shopify can be used for porn and that Shopify does not have TOS and does not enforce it?

Is that to be explained by legality rather than morality, though?

Re: In Support of Free Speech

#118

Post by ZeroFries »

mwpmaybe wrote: post #82
Grue3 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny how similar argument is used by white nationalists to assert that they have a right not to do business with minorities. The mindsets of far left and far right are oddly similar.

You are walking around one day when you overhear someone accosting someone else. You run over to witness the accoster shouting vicious racial, religious, and/or sexual epitaphs at the accosted. You interrupt them and ask what's going on. It's clear the two don't know each other, and the accosted, who seems in shock, says he/she was just going about his/her day when this person noticed something about his/her appearan…

These examples just show that 100% tolerance, or tolerance of all ideas, equally, is a fairly tale proposition, not practical, and not conducive to well-functioning society. I like the concept of fuzzy-tolerance: try to understand where the accoster is coming from. Maybe some of his ideas have merit, while clearly others do not. Society should be in a constant tug-of-war, or re-negotiation, between tolerance of some ideas and intolerance of other ideas. The same thing happens, on a smaller scale, in your own mind.

Re: In Support of Free Speech

#119

Post by fao_ »

illuminati1911 wrote: post #63
fao_ wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there are few things they could say that I would find more distasteful than censorship. Perhaps being supportive of people who have called for the extermination of black people and other minorities?

What about leftist openly racist terrorist organisations like ANTIFA and BLM? Their products are being sold on Shopify as well.

ANTIFA stands for the elimination of fascists, i.e. people who want to exterminate minorities.

BLM stand for bringing the police who shot notably innocent black people to justice.

Richard Spencer and the Fascist-Right have openly proposed and spoken in great depth about the sterilization and or extermination of PoC, Jews, etc. and how exactly to achieve it.

Post reply on HN