61–70 of 119 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When has BLM called for the extermination of anyone?
I consider throwing bricks as speaking through action: http://www.npr.org/2016/07/11/485593473/black-lives-matter-p...
In general, I support Shopify not dropping Breitbart. But this line I don't think works: > 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?
Imagine if your ISP or your bank took a moral stance on everything?
Good. I've never read a Breitbart article, but there are few things they could say that I would find more distasteful than censorship. Interesting editorializing of the headline on this post.
> 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?
The headline is offensively misleading. A boycott, or severance of commercial relationship, is not censorship. It's people using commerce to express their values, which is also a form of free speech. Unlike true censorship, which comes from the government, both parties are free to seek other partners in promoting their products or messages. Lütke's attempt to paint this as a defense of free speech is disingenuous, an…
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 blocking out voices, we would fall short of our goals as a company to make commerce better for everyone. Instead, we would have a biased and diminished platform."
The title of the post is "In Support of Free Speech." I thought that kind of editorializing was generally frowned upon here?
Just dont get upset when people refuse to use shopify in protest.
It is generally never free to stand for your principles. Do you want to encourage a world were people don't by harming does who do? I would be very careful what I wished for.
Good. I've never read a Breitbart article, but there are few things they could say that I would find more distasteful than censorship. Interesting editorializing of the headline on this post.
Refusing to do business with someone is not censorship.
Refusing to voluntarily engage in commerce is hardly censorship. All this post is saying is "We're totally fine with neo-Nazis, so long as we make some money from them." A principled boycott is not censorship, it is further free expression. Shame on shopify for abandoning principles in favor of profit.
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…
Being a Nazi is a priori violent. They have declared an intent to commit genocide by subscribing to that ideology. They ought to be excluded from society at every turn, because their goal is the destruction of our society and the mass murder of our peers.
Refusing to voluntarily engage in commerce is hardly censorship. All this post is saying is "We're totally fine with neo-Nazis, so long as we make some money from them." A principled boycott is not censorship, it is further free expression. Shame on shopify for abandoning principles in favor of profit.
Did you also support Visa's and MasterCard's decisions to stop transactions to WikiLeaks?