821–830 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are plenty of comments on HN in opposition to Visa and MasterCard stopping to work with Pornhub. Volume might not be the same, but that's hardly surprising. - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25381920 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25379213
The volume is the point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The baker was ruled in favor due to objecting based on his religious beliefs. No, he was ruled in favor of because the US Supreme Court found anti-religious animus in the enforcement process leading to the State ruling against him. > Part of this was that he was okay with baking a cake for the gay couple but NOT one that had certain messaging that would violate his faith. No, it wasn't. The decision specifically no…
Not to mention they are intentionally sending more LGBTQ customers his way to have him politely say no and refer them to another business, just so they can sue him again, and again, and again... https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/masterpiece-cakeshop...
Who are they and why do you think they send people?
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…
> AWS and Visa feel like the former, though they are legally the latter. Back in the day, you had to rack your own servers in your own data centers and manage them yourself. Had any of these 'free speech' services spent any time considering how reliant they were on 3rd party services, they should never have engaged those companies in the first place. There was a day when you had to build your own servers to host your…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quite. This is not a political debate. This is about enforcing TOS which explicitly ban use for criminal acts. The fact that the criminal is the President of the United States and his enablers is incidental to the principle. No one wants to ban any reasonable political views. But when a political party organises public mass violence, subversion, insurrection, murder, intimidation of public officers, the attempted ove…
> Attempts to turn this into a debate about political censorship are not being made in good faith But it is political. This summer saw widespread political violence, including attacks on government institutions, not to mention billions in property damage, but the mainstream reaction to that was "Show me where it says protests are supposed to be polite and peaceful"[1] with massive support for the riots from Silicon V…
Lets go through some quick fire bullet points, 93% of the summer protests where peaceful, most of the damage was on insured property with no loss of life, the cause of the riots was the unashamed and unlawful treatment of minorities in America. It was a grassroots movement.
Now lets compare that to, a mob that straight away turned to violence, caused loss of life (and bashed the head of a police man with a fire extinguisher), mob had gallows and chanted to kill the vice president, pipe bombs, molotov cocktails and hostage situation zip ties where found on the scene, and it all started from a conspiracy theory that 51 different judges have considered meritless, our congress has considered meritless and the vice president of his own administration considered debunked.
I wonder who is the one with a double standard here?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The volume is the point.
The volume indicates the popularity of the opinion. You can debate the opinions as long as you do it civilly.
I was on the fence about this, but reading the comments convinced me it was the absolute right decision. The fact that all these institutions just allowed this horrible hateful speech for four years, in the name of free speech etc, despite all the harassment, harm (mental and otherwise) it caused to so many people in America actually emboldened so many to the extent that now that they crossed this invisible line, the…
I feel like your analysis misses the forest for the trees. Even if Facebook, Twitter, etc, had banned all these platforms and politicians, I'm confident people still would have come out for the protest. Taking away people's ability to organize on mainstream platforms didn't stop the HK protestors from organizing against the CCP. The lack of online platforms didn't stop the Color Revolutions in Eastern Europe. Even th…
It doesn’t need to work perfectly for it to be useful.
Btw do you know what doesn’t work? Appeasement. That only lets bad actors know that they can go even further. Resisting taking reasonable action for fear of violence is plain old appeasement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Violate them and you can take your business elsewhere. 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.
As has been said elsewhere, this is not about disagreeing with someone’s political views. This is about not amplifying a voice that incites a mob to attack congress and overturn an election. And they aren’t even banning people for solely the latter! Representatives who continue to support the president have had no issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the article in question, they are banning someone who blatantly committed criminal acts against the state. Literally an attempt by the president to overthrow the government. Treason is a crime that's enforceable with a death penalty.
Can you substantiate your claims?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We could say there is a strong argument Joe Biden and his family broke the law, and indeed there's a criminal investigation into Hunter and associates. However not only did all the big tech companies not withdraw support for Biden or prevent his campaign from using their apps, they doubled down and censored the story so most voters would not hear of it before the elections. Again, big double standards at play here fr…
The Hunter Biden conspiracy has been debunked dozens of times over. That’s why the companies haven’t withdrawn support for his family. Trump, OTOH, has pushed the boundaries of acceptable his entire presidency, and has almost certainly broken the law in the process many time.
“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” — George Orwell, Animal Farm I understand the moves by Stripe, Twitter, and co. However, I would argue that the long term implications set by this precedent are much worse. When the Snowden story first broke back in 2013, many on HN argued that, hey it's all good, I have nothing to hide, and I trust our President. Three short years later, who took…
1. "leader of the free world" is an incredibly arrogant statement.
2. He can be banned for the same reason that the rest of us can: inciting violence. I'd argue that having equal rules for everyone (or even _stricter_ ones for politicians) is good and healthy. The banning of people inciting violence gives me hope.