Why you should care that a Neo Nazi website got shut down
I hate Nazis as much as the next fucktard. But this America. Free speech is free speech. It's a dangerous, slippery slope when internet companies like Google, GoDaddy, Paypal, YouTube and others are allowed to silence the speech of those they disagree with, by denying service. Paypal has indicated it won't accept the business of those whose political views they disagree with. A hotel booking company denied booking services to those who went to Charlottesville to attend that rally. You can try to make the argument that they can do whatever they want, they're a corporation or whatever. Shit doesn't fly when we're talking about the purveyors of information.
Free speech needs to be protected online as much as it's protected in real life. Google and its pet dog Youtube silence free speech by removing content they deem 'offensive.' They also deny advertising dollars to sites that don't fit neatly into their political world view. Facebook removed German users who dared to criticize Merkel's insane immigration (moslem invasion) policy. But who are 'they' and what right do they have to decide what's offensive and what isn't? What happens when they decide your views are offensive and they come to silence you. It's not an if, it's a when, if this kind of behavior from internet companies is allowed to continue.
Comments
-
They are a for profit business. No way around that. As long as they bake cakes for gay couples they should be ok
-
Agree. Youtube has been defunding people simply for not being all in on left leaning politics. So one political party gets to dictate how we think and what we learn. Yikes.
-
Your free market argument only goes so far. We aren't talking about Amazon or Ebay here. We are talking about who controls the flow of information and who decides what is offensive and what isn't, we're talking about free speech and denying access to other points of view.RaceBannon said:They are a for profit business. No way around that. As long as they bake cakes for gay couples they should be ok
-
I just wanted to get the bakery shot in. The rationale being that you can't discriminate even in a private business.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Your free market argument only goes so far. We aren't talking about Amazon or Ebay here. We are talking about who controls the flow of information and who decides what is offensive and what isn't by denying access to other points of view.RaceBannon said:They are a for profit business. No way around that. As long as they bake cakes for gay couples they should be ok
I wonder if google would be held to the same standard since they are on the "right" side. You could probably come up with some interstate commerce clause to not allow them to discriminate.
I'm not comfortable with the state telling them what to do but they are acting like the state.
Which sounds like something a statist would say
The other answer is let the white power folks get their own hotel booking site but I suspect google and the others wouldn't stop there
These folks live in fear of bad social media -
You need look no further than Canada to see the end result of this kind of totalitarianism. It's still in its infancy here and needs to be aborted before it escapes the womb. You can be fined there for telling the wrong kind of joke, and jailed if you can't pay. They have 'tribunals' that basically decide what is offensive and what isn't, what kind of speech is allowed and what kind of speech will be silenced. Fight the system there and you will pay the price and even have your career/livelihood stripped away from you.
-
Dialed in.RaceBannon said:
I just wanted to get the bakery shot in. The rationale being that you can't discriminate even in a private business.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Your free market argument only goes so far. We aren't talking about Amazon or Ebay here. We are talking about who controls the flow of information and who decides what is offensive and what isn't by denying access to other points of view.RaceBannon said:They are a for profit business. No way around that. As long as they bake cakes for gay couples they should be ok
I wonder if google would be held to the same standard since they are on the "right" side. You could probably come up with some interstate commerce clause to not allow them to discriminate.
I'm not comfortable with the state telling them what to do but they are acting like the state.
Which sounds like something a statist would say
The other answer is let the white power folks get their own hotel booking site but I suspect google and the others wouldn't stop there
These folks live in fear of bad social media -
Agree that corporations like Google shouldn't have that level of control over what information we view. But it starts with net neutrality.
Google has a lot of control over the flow of information on the internet but at least there are easily accessible alternatives to it. Kill net neutrality and it'll open a door for ISP's to have free reign to regulate what content you get... but the difference is some of whom have virtual monopolies on internet service in some areas of the country. OBK you talk about slippery slopes... that's a massive one.
Trump's FCC chair has made it abundantly clear he's anti-net neutrality, and they're moving toward killing it. It's a blatant move against free speech on the internet. For all of you who hate the mainstream media... you'll hate it more when they can afford to pay Comcast more $$ for faster speeds while smaller alternative news sources get screwed because they can't afford to compete on that level.
And fuck off to anyone who is pro-open internet and isn't worried about this... there's a reason why ISP's are spending ridiculous amounts of money lobbying for this. -
YBFENEsnake12 said:Agree that corporations like Google shouldn't have that level of control over what information we view. But it starts with net neutrality.
Google has a lot of control over the flow of information on the internet but at least there are easily accessible alternatives to it. Kill net neutrality and it'll open a door for ISP's to have free reign to regulate what content you get... but the difference is some of whom have virtual monopolies on internet service in some areas of the country. OBK you talk about slippery slopes... that's a massive one.
Trump's FCC chair has made it abundantly clear he's anti-net neutrality, and they're moving toward killing it. It's a blatant move against free speech on the internet. For all of you who hate the mainstream media... you'll hate it more when they can afford to pay Comcast more $$ for faster speeds while smaller alternative news sources get screwed because they can't afford to compete on that level.
And fuck off to anyone who is pro-open internet and isn't worried about this... there's a reason why ISP's are spending ridiculous amounts of money lobbying for this.
-
No state institution involved so no First Amendment issue, no aggrieved status, no protected class. Looking at any case involving denial of service to Nazis, a court would rule on rational basis and find for the company, if they deigned to take the case at all. NeoNazis want to get The Word out, they can stand on fucking streetcorners and hand out flyers like the Original Gangsta Brownshirts did.
-
I've been trying to understand this net nutrality shit. Good post thanksNEsnake12 said:Agree that corporations like Google shouldn't have that level of control over what information we view. But it starts with net neutrality.
Google has a lot of control over the flow of information on the internet but at least there are easily accessible alternatives to it. Kill net neutrality and it'll open a door for ISP's to have free reign to regulate what content you get... but the difference is some of whom have virtual monopolies on internet service in some areas of the country. OBK you talk about slippery slopes... that's a massive one.
Trump's FCC chair has made it abundantly clear he's anti-net neutrality, and they're moving toward killing it. It's a blatant move against free speech on the internet. For all of you who hate the mainstream media... you'll hate it more when they can afford to pay Comcast more $$ for faster speeds while smaller alternative news sources get screwed because they can't afford to compete on that level.
And fuck off to anyone who is pro-open internet and isn't worried about this... there's a reason why ISP's are spending ridiculous amounts of money lobbying for this. -
Nazis are trash. So are racists like Louis Farrakhan. I know you don't like free speech at Berkeley. Free speech is dangerous and harmful to the students so it's important to cancel speeches by people who don't share their particular worldview so as not to offend anyone. I doubt you would have the same opinion if Farrakhan and his racist Islamist followers had their websites taken down. After all, they fit within the mold of what is approved by the cultural overlords.BearsWiin said:No state institution involved so no First Amendment issue, no aggrieved status, no protected class. Looking at any case involving denial of service to Nazis, a court would rule on rational basis and find for the company, if they deigned to take the case at all. NeoNazis want to get The Word out, they can stand on fucking streetcorners and hand out flyers like the Original Gangsta Brownshirts did.
-
OBK doesn't like it but Gays are protected by civil rights legislation and Nazis aren't. Good answer BEAR fanBearsWiin said:No state institution involved so no First Amendment issue, no aggrieved status, no protected class. Looking at any case involving denial of service to Nazis, a court would rule on rational basis and find for the company, if they deigned to take the case at all. NeoNazis want to get The Word out, they can stand on fucking streetcorners and hand out flyers like the Original Gangsta Brownshirts did.
-
What happens if you're a gay Nazi wanting to start a website to air your views. Will they shut you down for being a Nazi? Or will they protect you for being gay?
-
You really are a fucking imbecile.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Nazis are trash. So are racists like Louis Farrakhan. I know you don't like free speech at Berkeley. Free speech is dangerous and harmful to the students so it's important to cancel speeches by people who don't share their particular worldview so as not to offend anyone. I doubt you would have the same opinion if Farrakhan and his racist Islamist followers had their websites taken down. After all, they fit within the mold of what is approved by the cultural overlords.BearsWiin said:No state institution involved so no First Amendment issue, no aggrieved status, no protected class. Looking at any case involving denial of service to Nazis, a court would rule on rational basis and find for the company, if they deigned to take the case at all. NeoNazis want to get The Word out, they can stand on fucking streetcorners and hand out flyers like the Original Gangsta Brownshirts did.
-
Goosestepper.BearsWiin said:
You really are a fucking imbecile.oregonblitzkrieg said:
Nazis are trash. So are racists like Louis Farrakhan. I know you don't like free speech at Berkeley. Free speech is dangerous and harmful to the students so it's important to cancel speeches by people who don't share their particular worldview so as not to offend anyone. I doubt you would have the same opinion if Farrakhan and his racist Islamist followers had their websites taken down. After all, they fit within the mold of what is approved by the cultural overlords.BearsWiin said:No state institution involved so no First Amendment issue, no aggrieved status, no protected class. Looking at any case involving denial of service to Nazis, a court would rule on rational basis and find for the company, if they deigned to take the case at all. NeoNazis want to get The Word out, they can stand on fucking streetcorners and hand out flyers like the Original Gangsta Brownshirts did.
-
oregonblitzkrieg said:
You need look no further than Canada to see the end result of this kind of totalitarianism. It's still in its infancy here and needs to be aborted before it escapes the womb. You can be fined there for telling the wrong kind of joke, and jailed if you can't pay. They have 'tribunals' that basically decide what is offensive and what isn't, what kind of speech is allowed and what kind of speech will be silenced. Fight the system there and you will pay the price and even have your career/livelihood stripped away from you.
Not sure I agree with you on this. Heavily regulated industries are quasi governmental for various purposes. They often have the choice of either bowing to government regulator demands, or they get deemed a monopoly and get broken up. It's been a long time since the Supreme Court has heard one of these cases, but it's a lot like when Microsoft was facing anti-trust lawsuits for bundling it's browser with Windows.BearsWiin said:No state institution involved so no First Amendment issue, no aggrieved status, no protected class. Looking at any case involving denial of service to Nazis, a court would rule on rational basis and find for the company, if they deigned to take the case at all. NeoNazis want to get The Word out, they can stand on fucking streetcorners and hand out flyers like the Original Gangsta Brownshirts did.
It will be interesting to watch, because Google and Social Media companies have far more influence over politics and daily life than Microsoft or Netscape ever did.
I just realized something. I'm getting fucking old. -
And what was it that wedged open the door? Canada's embrace of European Socialism. Nobody wants to admit they go together.oregonblitzkrieg said:You need look no further than Canada to see the end result of this kind of totalitarianism. It's still in its infancy here and needs to be aborted before it escapes the womb. You can be fined there for telling the wrong kind of joke, and jailed if you can't pay. They have 'tribunals' that basically decide what is offensive and what isn't, what kind of speech is allowed and what kind of speech will be silenced. Fight the system there and you will pay the price and even have your career/livelihood stripped away from you.
-
Sounds like the NeoNazis need to hire some devs in Mumbai to build and maintain a custom domain registrar for them. Maybe recruit some Indian or Asian computer science interns.
-
Socialism always ends in dictatorship. Always. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. National Socialism in Germany. Venezuela, etc.TurdBuffer said:
And what was it that wedged open the door? Canada's embrace of European Socialism. Nobody wants to admit they go together.oregonblitzkrieg said:You need look no further than Canada to see the end result of this kind of totalitarianism. It's still in its infancy here and needs to be aborted before it escapes the womb. You can be fined there for telling the wrong kind of joke, and jailed if you can't pay. They have 'tribunals' that basically decide what is offensive and what isn't, what kind of speech is allowed and what kind of speech will be silenced. Fight the system there and you will pay the price and even have your career/livelihood stripped away from you.
-
The Night of the Long Knives: See Ernst Rohm. (You're welcome)oregonblitzkrieg said:What happens if you're a gay Nazi wanting to start a website to air your views. Will they shut you down for being a Nazi? Or will they protect you for being gay?
-
I agree that social media companies wield a lot of influence. I don't agree that any of them constitute monopolies at this poont. There are multiple browsers, multiple search engines, and multiple social media sites. If a bunch of companies are refusing to let Nazis use their products to spread hateful content, perhaps the problem lies with the hateful content and not with the companies. And private companies reserve the right to refuse service based on what they see as inappropriate customer behavior all the time. Try going into your neighborhood Olive Garden and start spewing Nazi epithets, and see how quickly you get told to leave. Your local newspaper runs ads for fucking Presidents Day Auto sales deals, but I doubt you'll see them running ads for the local NaziPalooza. Media companies can refuse service; it doesn't necessarily constitute a legal infringement on free speech.TurdBuffer said:oregonblitzkrieg said:You need look no further than Canada to see the end result of this kind of totalitarianism. It's still in its infancy here and needs to be aborted before it escapes the womb. You can be fined there for telling the wrong kind of joke, and jailed if you can't pay. They have 'tribunals' that basically decide what is offensive and what isn't, what kind of speech is allowed and what kind of speech will be silenced. Fight the system there and you will pay the price and even have your career/livelihood stripped away from you.
Not sure I agree with you on this. Heavily regulated industries are quasi governmental for various purposes. They often have the choice of either bowing to government regulator demands, or they get deemed a monopoly and get broken up. It's been a long time since the Supreme Court has heard one of these cases, but it's a lot like when Microsoft was facing anti-trust lawsuits for bundling it's browser with Windows.BearsWiin said:No state institution involved so no First Amendment issue, no aggrieved status, no protected class. Looking at any case involving denial of service to Nazis, a court would rule on rational basis and find for the company, if they deigned to take the case at all. NeoNazis want to get The Word out, they can stand on fucking streetcorners and hand out flyers like the Original Gangsta Brownshirts did.
It will be interesting to watch, because Google and Social Media companies have far more influence over politics and daily life than Microsoft or Netscape ever did.
I just realized something. I'm getting fucking old.
Nobody is keeping Nazis from spewing their hateful content. They're free to say their stupid shit until their faces turn PrussianBlue. They just don't get to use a private company's platform to spread it. If they owned their own ISP company, there wouldn't be any problem. -
Canada? you described the majority of our? state run education systemoregonblitzkrieg said:You need look no further than Canada to see the end result of this kind of totalitarianism. It's still in its infancy here and needs to be aborted before it escapes the womb. You can be fined there for telling the wrong kind of joke, and jailed if you can't pay. They have 'tribunals' that basically decide what is offensive and what isn't, what kind of speech is allowed and what kind of speech will be silenced. Fight the system there and you will pay the price and even have your career/livelihood stripped away from you.
-
Uber cares
We were horrified by the neo-Nazi demonstration that took place in Charlottesville, which resulted in the loss of life of a young woman as well as two Virginia State Troopers responding to the protest. There is simply no place for this type of bigotry, discrimination, and hate.
As the country braces for more white supremacist demonstrations, we wanted to let you know what we are doing for the Uber community:
We will act swiftly and decisively to uphold our Community Guidelines, including our policy against discrimination of any kind—this includes banning people from the app.
24/7 in-app support is available to answer questions and address concerns. You always have the right to end your trip if you feel uncomfortable or disrespected.
Now more than ever we must stand together against hatred and violence. Thank you for making our community one that we can all be proud of.
On behalf of all of us at Uber,
Meghan Verena Joyce
Regional General Manager, US & Canada Cities -
But what if they were Gay Nazis?BearsWiin said:
I agree that social media companies wield a lot of influence. I don't agree that any of them constitute monopolies at this poont. There are multiple browsers, multiple search engines, and multiple social media sites. If a bunch of companies are refusing to let Nazis use their products to spread hateful content, perhaps the problem lies with the hateful content and not with the companies. And private companies reserve the right to refuse service based on what they see as inappropriate customer behavior all the time. Try going into your neighborhood Olive Garden and start spewing Nazi epithets, and see how quickly you get told to leave. Your local newspaper runs ads for fucking Presidents Day Auto sales deals, but I doubt you'll see them running ads for the local NaziPalooza. Media companies can refuse service; it doesn't necessarily constitute a legal infringement on free speech.TurdBuffer said:oregonblitzkrieg said:You need look no further than Canada to see the end result of this kind of totalitarianism. It's still in its infancy here and needs to be aborted before it escapes the womb. You can be fined there for telling the wrong kind of joke, and jailed if you can't pay. They have 'tribunals' that basically decide what is offensive and what isn't, what kind of speech is allowed and what kind of speech will be silenced. Fight the system there and you will pay the price and even have your career/livelihood stripped away from you.
Not sure I agree with you on this. Heavily regulated industries are quasi governmental for various purposes. They often have the choice of either bowing to government regulator demands, or they get deemed a monopoly and get broken up. It's been a long time since the Supreme Court has heard one of these cases, but it's a lot like when Microsoft was facing anti-trust lawsuits for bundling it's browser with Windows.BearsWiin said:No state institution involved so no First Amendment issue, no aggrieved status, no protected class. Looking at any case involving denial of service to Nazis, a court would rule on rational basis and find for the company, if they deigned to take the case at all. NeoNazis want to get The Word out, they can stand on fucking streetcorners and hand out flyers like the Original Gangsta Brownshirts did.
It will be interesting to watch, because Google and Social Media companies have far more influence over politics and daily life than Microsoft or Netscape ever did.
I just realized something. I'm getting fucking old.
Nobody is keeping Nazis from spewing their hateful content. They're free to say their stupid shit until their faces turn PrussianBlue. They just don't get to use a private company's platform to spread it. If they owned their own ISP company, there wouldn't be any problem. -
I take offense to these posers acting like Nazis
Wait til I hit up the motherland and get my own Nazis in here -
FCC 'Net Neutrality' is bits, bandwidth and routing tables, not words. The pro-side politically outmaneuvered the opposition out of the gate by adopting the Neutrality mantle, and let everyone think this was idea-content neutrality. It's really out protecting distribution channels and physical plant investment.NEsnake12 said:Agree that corporations like Google shouldn't have that level of control over what information we view. But it starts with net neutrality.
Google has a lot of control over the flow of information on the internet but at least there are easily accessible alternatives to it. Kill net neutrality and it'll open a door for ISP's to have free reign to regulate what content you get... but the difference is some of whom have virtual monopolies on internet service in some areas of the country. OBK you talk about slippery slopes... that's a massive one.
Trump's FCC chair has made it abundantly clear he's anti-net neutrality, and they're moving toward killing it. It's a blatant move against free speech on the internet. For all of you who hate the mainstream media... you'll hate it more when they can afford to pay Comcast more $$ for faster speeds while smaller alternative news sources get screwed because they can't afford to compete on that level.
And fuck off to anyone who is pro-open internet and isn't worried about this... there's a reason why ISP's are spending ridiculous amounts of money lobbying for this.
The internet had done without statutory 'neutrality' from chinception to 2014 or whatever, and I'm not aware of content censorship in this country on any scale without customer request (parental locks, institutional firewalls, etc). -
Who decides what constitutes hateful content? You see where this is going? When one or several companies have a monopoly on internet access and information, they can no longer hide behind the excuse that they're a private company and therefore can shut down speech they don't agree with. Look at the hate speech laws in Canada. So easy to slip into a totalitarian system where free speech eventually gets suppressed with these sort of anti-democratic laws. Canada is nothing more than a shitty banana republic now, a free society in name only but not in practice.BearsWiin said:
I agree that social media companies wield a lot of influence. I don't agree that any of them constitute monopolies at this poont. There are multiple browsers, multiple search engines, and multiple social media sites. If a bunch of companies are refusing to let Nazis use their products to spread hateful content, perhaps the problem lies with the hateful content and not with the companies. And private companies reserve the right to refuse service based on what they see as inappropriate customer behavior all the time. Try going into your neighborhood Olive Garden and start spewing Nazi epithets, and see how quickly you get told to leave. Your local newspaper runs ads for fucking Presidents Day Auto sales deals, but I doubt you'll see them running ads for the local NaziPalooza. Media companies can refuse service; it doesn't necessarily constitute a legal infringement on free speech.TurdBuffer said:oregonblitzkrieg said:You need look no further than Canada to see the end result of this kind of totalitarianism. It's still in its infancy here and needs to be aborted before it escapes the womb. You can be fined there for telling the wrong kind of joke, and jailed if you can't pay. They have 'tribunals' that basically decide what is offensive and what isn't, what kind of speech is allowed and what kind of speech will be silenced. Fight the system there and you will pay the price and even have your career/livelihood stripped away from you.
Not sure I agree with you on this. Heavily regulated industries are quasi governmental for various purposes. They often have the choice of either bowing to government regulator demands, or they get deemed a monopoly and get broken up. It's been a long time since the Supreme Court has heard one of these cases, but it's a lot like when Microsoft was facing anti-trust lawsuits for bundling it's browser with Windows.BearsWiin said:No state institution involved so no First Amendment issue, no aggrieved status, no protected class. Looking at any case involving denial of service to Nazis, a court would rule on rational basis and find for the company, if they deigned to take the case at all. NeoNazis want to get The Word out, they can stand on fucking streetcorners and hand out flyers like the Original Gangsta Brownshirts did.
It will be interesting to watch, because Google and Social Media companies have far more influence over politics and daily life than Microsoft or Netscape ever did.
I just realized something. I'm getting fucking old.
Nobody is keeping Nazis from spewing their hateful content. They're free to say their stupid shit until their faces turn PrussianBlue. They just don't get to use a private company's platform to spread it. If they owned their own ISP company, there wouldn't be any problem. -
They would drive themselves to the gas chambersTurdBuffer said:
But what if they were Gay Nazis?BearsWiin said:
I agree that social media companies wield a lot of influence. I don't agree that any of them constitute monopolies at this poont. There are multiple browsers, multiple search engines, and multiple social media sites. If a bunch of companies are refusing to let Nazis use their products to spread hateful content, perhaps the problem lies with the hateful content and not with the companies. And private companies reserve the right to refuse service based on what they see as inappropriate customer behavior all the time. Try going into your neighborhood Olive Garden and start spewing Nazi epithets, and see how quickly you get told to leave. Your local newspaper runs ads for fucking Presidents Day Auto sales deals, but I doubt you'll see them running ads for the local NaziPalooza. Media companies can refuse service; it doesn't necessarily constitute a legal infringement on free speech.TurdBuffer said:oregonblitzkrieg said:You need look no further than Canada to see the end result of this kind of totalitarianism. It's still in its infancy here and needs to be aborted before it escapes the womb. You can be fined there for telling the wrong kind of joke, and jailed if you can't pay. They have 'tribunals' that basically decide what is offensive and what isn't, what kind of speech is allowed and what kind of speech will be silenced. Fight the system there and you will pay the price and even have your career/livelihood stripped away from you.
Not sure I agree with you on this. Heavily regulated industries are quasi governmental for various purposes. They often have the choice of either bowing to government regulator demands, or they get deemed a monopoly and get broken up. It's been a long time since the Supreme Court has heard one of these cases, but it's a lot like when Microsoft was facing anti-trust lawsuits for bundling it's browser with Windows.BearsWiin said:No state institution involved so no First Amendment issue, no aggrieved status, no protected class. Looking at any case involving denial of service to Nazis, a court would rule on rational basis and find for the company, if they deigned to take the case at all. NeoNazis want to get The Word out, they can stand on fucking streetcorners and hand out flyers like the Original Gangsta Brownshirts did.
It will be interesting to watch, because Google and Social Media companies have far more influence over politics and daily life than Microsoft or Netscape ever did.
I just realized something. I'm getting fucking old.
Nobody is keeping Nazis from spewing their hateful content. They're free to say their stupid shit until their faces turn PrussianBlue. They just don't get to use a private company's platform to spread it. If they owned their own ISP company, there wouldn't be any problem. -
Lulz. I'm laughing, but I'm not sure why.BearsWiin said:
They would drive themselves to the gas chambersTurdBuffer said:
But what if they were Gay Nazis?BearsWiin said:
I agree that social media companies wield a lot of influence. I don't agree that any of them constitute monopolies at this poont. There are multiple browsers, multiple search engines, and multiple social media sites. If a bunch of companies are refusing to let Nazis use their products to spread hateful content, perhaps the problem lies with the hateful content and not with the companies. And private companies reserve the right to refuse service based on what they see as inappropriate customer behavior all the time. Try going into your neighborhood Olive Garden and start spewing Nazi epithets, and see how quickly you get told to leave. Your local newspaper runs ads for fucking Presidents Day Auto sales deals, but I doubt you'll see them running ads for the local NaziPalooza. Media companies can refuse service; it doesn't necessarily constitute a legal infringement on free speech.TurdBuffer said:oregonblitzkrieg said:You need look no further than Canada to see the end result of this kind of totalitarianism. It's still in its infancy here and needs to be aborted before it escapes the womb. You can be fined there for telling the wrong kind of joke, and jailed if you can't pay. They have 'tribunals' that basically decide what is offensive and what isn't, what kind of speech is allowed and what kind of speech will be silenced. Fight the system there and you will pay the price and even have your career/livelihood stripped away from you.
Not sure I agree with you on this. Heavily regulated industries are quasi governmental for various purposes. They often have the choice of either bowing to government regulator demands, or they get deemed a monopoly and get broken up. It's been a long time since the Supreme Court has heard one of these cases, but it's a lot like when Microsoft was facing anti-trust lawsuits for bundling it's browser with Windows.BearsWiin said:No state institution involved so no First Amendment issue, no aggrieved status, no protected class. Looking at any case involving denial of service to Nazis, a court would rule on rational basis and find for the company, if they deigned to take the case at all. NeoNazis want to get The Word out, they can stand on fucking streetcorners and hand out flyers like the Original Gangsta Brownshirts did.
It will be interesting to watch, because Google and Social Media companies have far more influence over politics and daily life than Microsoft or Netscape ever did.
I just realized something. I'm getting fucking old.
Nobody is keeping Nazis from spewing their hateful content. They're free to say their stupid shit until their faces turn PrussianBlue. They just don't get to use a private company's platform to spread it. If they owned their own ISP company, there wouldn't be any problem. -
So they're saying the Nazis in Charleston without transportation were on their own? No warning, just gone?RaceBannon said:Uber cares
We were horrified by the neo-Nazi demonstration that took place in Charlottesville, which resulted in the loss of life of a young woman as well as two Virginia State Troopers responding to the protest. There is simply no place for this type of bigotry, discrimination, and hate.
As the country braces for more white supremacist demonstrations, we wanted to let you know what we are doing for the Uber community:
We will act swiftly and decisively to uphold our Community Guidelines, including our policy against discrimination of any kind—this includes banning people from the app.
24/7 in-app support is available to answer questions and address concerns. You always have the right to end your trip if you feel uncomfortable or disrespected.
Now more than ever we must stand together against hatred and violence. Thank you for making our community one that we can all be proud of.
On behalf of all of us at Uber,
Meghan Verena Joyce
Regional General Manager, US & Canada Cities
