It’s cute how hateful bigots think that their “perspectives on race” are just your average opinion (“everybody has 'em!”) and that they deserve respect. I love that America instinctively moves to shun and ostracize these sociopaths.
Oooh, poor racists can’t catch a break. Their “alternative viewpoint” is widely despised, perfectly playing into their victimhood/martyrdom bullshit. Poor fucking xenophobes are finding out the hard way that there is only intolerance for THEIR intolerance.
So, why stop at internet companies, then? Maybe all companies should have the legal right to deny services to people based solely on their political beliefs. Doctors, hospital emergency rooms, insurance companies, grocery stores, credit card companies, etc…
“Oh, you support murdering babies? No service for you.”
“Oh, you support destroying traditional marriage? No service for you.”
“Oh, you’re a Democrat? No service for you.”
Think, people.
@boisdevache
@richardinjax
@daveyjones64
@treeofliberalty
@thx1138
@Lacuna-Synecdoche
@antisachetdethe
Try it. Then you will discover what near-monopoly means.
Life’s a bitch, then you’re marginalized…
Thousands do, every year. Most don’t succeed.
Some do, and they challenge the gods. But the point is, the opportunity is there for them.
If you’re trying to suggest they’re somehow not “allowed” to compete, then spit out your claim so we can all entertain it – and stop beating around the bush.
You had me, george, with your first comment. Now you reveal yourself to be a concern troll. No one here is concerned that Trump is being treated unfairly by the media or that hate groups are having trouble organizing trouble. Go away.
I only ever see slippery slope arguments used to justify a conservative agenda. This post is just blatant context stripping and false equivalency.
Someone named “Pax”, full of hate.
Ironic.
I never said that businesses are not allowed to try to compete. They are. My point is that the near-monopoly economic power of the big internet corporations makes competing against them in their dominating space virtually impossible.
From a strictly personal and philosophical standpoint, it shouldn’t. Someone’s sexual orientation isn’t a choice, whereas whether or not to openly advocate and become a representative of what hate groups espouse is. And what they espouse is vastly more damaging to society than a gay couple enjoying a cake on their wedding day.
But legally, it depends. There are legally protected classes of people. At the federal level, homosexuals aren’t one of them (see: Civil Rights Act of 1964). But state laws can be passed that say homosexuals are a protected class. Interestingly enough, the most famous gay wedding cake story from a few years ago that got the country all riled up was as big as it was because the cake company was located in Oregon. And Oregon does have a law that makes it illegal for a business to discriminate against gay couples. Under Oregon law, the cake company was wholly in the wrong. It should be that way at the federal level, in my opinion, but it isn’t…yet.
You can see it for whatever you want, but my point still stands: allowing corporations to ban legal speech from their platforms because they disagree with the content is wrong. You may think it is fine as long as it isn’t your speech being banned, but for me, I am going to try to prevent that day from coming, even if I disagree with you.
So your saying facebook should have porn?
OT – OK, this is so funny its not.
(Gotta go and do some tomato and salsa canning today at my neighbors…See y’all later.)
They’re not near-monopolies. They’re just extremely popular platforms that are very hard to pull loyal customers away from. All of those social media sites you’ve listed are in some level of competition with one-another as well, which also isn’t a monopoly. The same thing that happened to MySpace and Friendster could very much happen to Facebook in the coming years if a more relevant platform comes along. Just because people fail at crafting horrible alternatives like ReaganBook doesn’t mean that other social media sites have some kind of stranglehold on social media for all of time.
What is porn?
Hey! Just like trump! Yes, so much better. Sympathizer sounds nice. It softens the “Nazi” part.
Correction: ASSHOLE = Degenerate Psychopath
Sure, we expect corporations to be self-serving. Legally, they have a right to restrict access to anyone not in a protected group. Nazis and white supremacists are not protected. If a corporation wants to host them or boot them, they certainly may.
Again, it’s the government that may not restrict speech unless it harms someone. Corporations have more freedoms than people these days. They certainly may make their own rules as long as they don’t break the law.
Germany has been on that slippery slope since the end of WW2.
The difference is that there they’re ashamed of the bad parts of their history - in the USA it’s celebrated.
OK one more before I’m out the door…This one’s funny too.