31–40 of 119 posts
> 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?
Well, who do you want to define your moral code? Do you want to define your own moral code, or do you want Breitbart to define your moral code?
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?
By your logic where does anyone that doesn't condemn BLM stand?
https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/power-boycott?width=7...
A more accurate title would be "Shopify refuses to stop working with Breitbart".
Why of course they do. A secular, open society means you can have whatever opinion you like, as long as it is peaceful, and you can participate just like anyone else. How else would you want it?
Modern activists seem quite odd to me. In the states, at least, you have the right for free and open political support to seek redress for your grievances. That is, something's not right about society or the government, so you use persuasion to argue your case to the rest of us.
But that's not what's happening. Instead it looks a lot more like economic warfare. Person A, B, and C are wrong. They must be punished. There's not the usual outreach of persuading others that we've traditionally had. It's much more about being in the right club.
I find it odd that this needs to be either a post or something the community talks about. It'd be like an article titled "Local gas station provides gas to Nazis" Why of course they do. A secular, open society means you can have whatever opinion you like, as long as it is peaceful, and you can participate just like anyone else. How else would you want it? Modern activists seem quite odd to me. In the states, at least…
I find it odd that this needs to be either a post or something the community talks about. It'd be like an article titled "Local gas station provides gas to Nazis" Why of course they do. A secular, open society means you can have whatever opinion you like, as long as it is peaceful, and you can participate just like anyone else. How else would you want it? Modern activists seem quite odd to me. In the states, at least…
I find it odd that this needs to be either a post or something the community talks about. It'd be like an article titled "Local gas station provides gas to Nazis" Why of course they do. A secular, open society means you can have whatever opinion you like, as long as it is peaceful, and you can participate just like anyone else. How else would you want it? Modern activists seem quite odd to me. In the states, at least…
Alternative headline: "Shopify Stands Strong on Free Speech"
"Instead of imposing our own morality on the platform, we defer to the law. All products must be legal in the jurisdiction of the business."
Compare that to the terms of service:
"We may, but have no obligation to, remove Store Content and Accounts containing content that we determine in our sole discretion are unlawful, offensive, threatening, libelous, defamatory, pornographic, obscene or otherwise objectionable or violates any party’s intellectual property or these Terms of Service."
If their entire policy is to defer to the law, why do they reserve the right to remove content for all these other reasons? Maybe they've changed their mind and haven't gotten around to codifying the new policy?
I took a look around their store to see if the objection was purely based on their views, or if there were offensive products. I came across a t-shirt which puts "E Pluribus Unum" inside an eagle insignia that is clearly the Nazi parteiadler minus the swastika part. I think it would be reasonable to say that this is offensive and possibly threatening, although no doubt perfectly legal in most places.
(This is not my first experience with surprise parteiadlers. I once got a free pair of sunglasses with a contact lens exam which turned out to be from BOY London, whose logo is the parteiadler minus the swastika. I exchanged them and suggested to that store that they might want to stop carrying merchandise with Nazi symbols on them. They were rather shocked to discover it. Until then, I didn't know that I had to check for Nazi symbols on stuff!)
Beyond that, I dislike this idea that picking and choosing with whom you do business is "censorship." This isn't speech, it's commerce. You're helping to fund these guys. Breitbart absolutely has the right to free speech, but they have no right to sell their wares through whatever platform they choose. If Shopify chose not to send money to these crypto-Nazis, it would not be an act of censorship. Their words would still be available to anyone who chooses to obtain them, Shopify just wouldn't be helping anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should Apple donate the profits of every Macbook sold to neo-Nazis? How do you identify them? Don't censor people and play into their victim complex. Treat them the exact same way you would anyone else and if you can't convince them through argument that they are wrong then you have nothing to stand on.
Add a checkbox to the order form. "Donate the profits from my purchase to the ACLU."