591–600 of 1001 posts
They made their choice, we'll see the consequences of their actions now.
It's one thing to ban a normal person or business. But to ban Trump, the current sitting president, leader of GOP and the person that represent almost half the country, is tall order.
There's good reason why business should avoid politics, like Coinbase has done so far. It's a slippery slope that doesn't end well for the business.
Maybe I'm being naive but it seems like a larger problem is being ignored here that I feel I should call attention to. This is going to piss people off and some of those people are going to be real, nothing-to-lose extremists. Actions like these though seemingly harmless in the short-term are going to radicalize the exact person/type of people that you do not want to radicalize. Because a lot of high-ranking SV folks…
The people cheering this on will not be protected when the mob comes for you. We live in a digital age. If having the wrong opinion means you can get your bank accounts and all Internet presence removed from you, it's not any different than living under a fascist government.
Isn't this overreach? Financial organisation making conditions on which political party you can support.
Your political party isn’t a protected class. If you think it should be then call your congress critter and get them to change the law.
https://californiaemploymentlaw.foxrothschild.com/2018/10/ar....
There is a difference between bank accounts, Visa/MasterCard access and Internet service, on one hand, and App Stores, Twitter accounts and payment providers, on the other hand. The First Amendment promises both free speech and free assembly. Core to the latter is the freedom not to assemble. This freedom is regulated. You can’t refuse to do business with protected classes. But political affiliation is not a protecte…
> But political affiliation is not a protected class. Just FYI, some countries have made it a protected class, e.g.: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1993/0082/latest/... (see 21(1)(j))
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately I don't think it's a stretch to suggest that a large percentage of people across the political spectrum lack basic civics knowledge.
We make people take a test to drive. People should have to take a Civics based test to vote. If someone wants to vote but fails the civics test, they should then immediately qualify for a minimum living wage job to go back to public education and get paid for getting at least an 80% grade at whatever grade level they're working at (obviously with either enrollment at lower grade levels, classification as disability i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually it's fraught with issues. "Hate speech" was used to stop the republishing of the cartoons that got the Danish guy murdered. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/why-im-withdra...
Nothing's perfect, my point us that it didn't lead to a totalitarian state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Bernie sanders brags about occupying government buildings. Would he be held to the same standard? OAC praised BLM protesters marching on the White House a few months ago, with Antifa trying to breach police lines and storm the White House. This is "what about"-ism. It deflects responsibility and puts the focus on other's behavior. In this philosophy for one side to accept that what they did was bad, it requires eve…
> Occupying a building is a form of civil disobedience, which in the US is a respected form of protest. Assuming the owners of said building do not want you there, occupying a building is at best trespassing and at worst breaking and entering. Civil disobedience is explicitly breaking a law because you believe it to be unjust, with the full expectation that you will be arrested and possibly punished for your actions.…
I think you're talking about privately owned buildings.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah yeah those ToS, the new founding document of the United States of America. One little warning from someone living in a real fascist state (Russia). It wasn't always a fascist state, but when it began to morph into one, censorship what what they started with. Of course, it was legal, because it was all private companies, rightfully executing their liberty to not show anyone they don't like... The rich irony, of c…
So the government should instead step in and decide what companies can and can't do with their own services & infrastructure? That sounds a lot more fascist to me than a company saying, up front, "Here's the rules for using our service. Violate them and you can take your business elsewhere." And considering the ToS citations were I service of a potentially criminal act, fascism doesn't enter the picture: This is as m…
Here, I fixed it for you:
Violate them, and if you are not someone whose political views we support, you can take your business elsewhere.