Free speech to be blocked under guise of stopping hate speech.

[Mekh]

So, it's different, because you don't like why they refused service in the other example... got it. You are fine with discrimination, until you are against it... got it. Ironocally, the creation of protected classes is forced discrimination.

It's not dishonest at all, it shows your lack of logical consistency. You are quite literally justifying a law by the existence of the law itself, which is ludicrous. Otherwise, you would be opposed to Facebook doing this, if there were a law saying they could not do so. These are two comparable instances of a privately-owned business choosing not to do business with someone they do not wish to do business with. You may call that a false equivalence, but that's merely to cover up your hypocrisy. If you believe in freedom, which you claimed to do, then you should believe in freedom for everyone.

The right wing's persecution complex does not make them a protected class. And therein lies the difference.

[Machismo]

There's nothing confusing about Facebook's terms of service. Illiteracy is not an argument.



If baking cakes for customers is against your "personal values", you probably shouldn't be running a bakery.

If allowing people to speak onsocial media is against your "personal values," you probably shouldn't be running a social media website.

- - - Updated - - -

The right wing's persecution complex does not make them a protected class. And therein lies the difference.

What's the point of protected classes, other than to create forced discrimination by them? Isn't that the result of such things?

[Endus]

If allowing people to speak onsocial media is against your "personal values," you probably shouldn't be running a social media website.

Again, not what's happening, at all.

You have real issues sticking to the actual point at hand, don't you?

What's the point of protected classes, other than to create forced discrimination by them? Isn't that the result of such things?

No, that's your straw man. Protected classes prevent discrimination. They don't create it. Which should be blatantly obvious.

[Canpinter]

There's nothing confusing about Facebook's terms of service. Illiteracy is not an argument.

again facebook was just an example of a site i don't mean them specifically. but you have your head up your ass if you think most ToS are perfectly understandable to the average person

[Machismo]

im assuming this is a religious based law then the person is harmed by going to hell for not having one, or going to hell for not forcing other to do so.

So, the basis is fear, not actual harm.

[spinner981]

This has come up time and again and the fact is that in most nations Freedom of Speech is protection from the government within the outline of the law. Private entities have no such obligation to allow you to do and say whatever.

Free speech has rarely allowed anyone to say whatever, however, whenever and wherever. That is fantasy.

But where free speech is legal, you can say whatever, however, whenever and wherever the supermassive majority of the time. Being unable to shout "BOMB!" on an airplane or "GUN!" in a movie theater doesn't somehow undermine what free speech is intended to be, because free speech is about the freedom of expression of ideas, not simply the freedom of saying words.

In terms of a private organization, sure they can limit free speech, just like these forums do, but even if they have the right to do that it doesn't mean that they are being progressively minded or intellectually embracing or even morally justified in doing so. Most of the time it is intended to keep discussion focused on issues and topics that the private organization or place or group was intended for, but when it is just to limit the discussion of topics based on the arbitrary ethics of whoever came up with the rules; there is no logical method of justifying so apart from simply not liking those expressions of ideas.

If baking cakes for customers is against your "personal values", you probably shouldn't be running a bakery.

Endus you know that you're too good to be deliberately obtuse like this. So please don't attempt to just write off the truth with this kind of silliness. It's about being forced to support movements that you vehemently disagree with, such as the KKK or neo-naziism, as mentioned above. Let's discuss the real issue here please.

[Machismo]

Again, not what's happening, at all.

You have real issues sticking to the actual point at hand, don't you?

I just love pointing out logical inconsistencies and hypocrisy.

I think Facebook is completely within its righ to choose who it allows on its site. I support its desire to privately discriminate, and I see you agree with me.

[Mekh]

What's the point of protected classes, other than to create forced discrimination by them? Isn't that the result of such things?

You are being discriminated against, because black people don't have to drink from a separate water fountain anymore? Would you like to run this by me one more time, please?

[Endus]

again facebook was just an example of a site i don't mean them specifically. but you have your head up your ass if you think most ToS are perfectly understandable to the average person

I think they're long enough that people are lazy and don't bother, but that's not the fault of the website, that's the fault of people for being lazy. Same for when you sign a cell contract and don't realize what the penalties are for cancellation. Don't sign agreements you don't understand. That's a pretty basic rule of thumb.

[Canpinter]

If baking cakes for customers is against your "personal values", you probably shouldn't be running a bakery.

if allowing everyone to openly talk is against your personal values you probably shouldn't be running a open social media site.

[Endus]

I just love pointing out logical inconsistencies and hypocrisy.

I think Facebook is completely within its righ to choose who it allows on its site. I support its desire to privately discriminate, and I see you agree with me.

There's no discrimination going on. See? You can't stick to the point. You keep inventing straw men.

- - - Updated - - -

if allowing everyone to openly talk is against your personal values you probably shouldn't be running a open social media site.

If you thought Facebook existed to let you say whatever you wanted to say with no limits, then you didn't read the Terms of Service for the site, and that's your fault.

Yes, Facebook was never the platform you thought it was. That's not Facebook's fault. That's yours.

And it has nothing to do with "personal values".

[Canpinter]

I think they're long enough that people are lazy and don't bother, but that's not the fault of the website, that's the fault of people for being lazy. Same for when you sign a cell contract and don't realize what the penalties are for cancellation. Don't sign agreements you don't understand. That's a pretty basic rule of thumb.

again you are right from legal perspective but from a moral one it should be "don't wright agreements with the intent of being misunderstood"

[Endus]

again you are right from legal perspective but from a moral one it should be "don't wright agreements with the intent of being misunderstood"

That's the delusion you're trying to push, but it isn't true.

[spinner981]

If you thought Facebook existed to let you say whatever you wanted to say with no limits, then you didn't read the Terms of Service for the site, and that's your fault.

Yes, Facebook was never the platform you thought it was. That's not Facebook's fault. That's yours.

And it has nothing to do with "personal values".

If you thought that bakeries existed to let you command them around as your personal slaves to bake whatever you want with no limits, then you probably didn't take the time to consider their terms of service.

There's no discrimination going on. See? You can't stick to the point. You keep inventing straw men.

It is discrimination to pick and choose articles or news stories based on ANYTHING. It doesn't just have to be about your personal definition of discrimination, as in only pertaining to certain social groups that you have hand chosen as the only groups of which discrimination is possible against.

[Kuntantee]

This only bothers racists.

[Canpinter]

So, the basis is fear, not actual harm.

its harm they think is real, they are factually wrong but the goal is the same. if i have a wrong map and you have a right one we may go different ways but it doesn't mean we had different destinations as our goal.

- - - Updated - - -

That's the delusion you're trying to push, but it isn't true.

how is saying its unethical to intentionally mislead people a delusion?

- - - Updated - - -

This only bothers racists.

problem is who gets to chose what is and is not racist?

[spinner981]

You are being discriminated against, because black people don't have to drink from a separate water fountain anymore? Would you like to run this by me one more time, please?

Not sure where anyone mentioned water fountains. Shouldn't every group of people be a protected class? Why only some? Isn't that discrimination?

[dextersmith]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articl...ithin-24-hours

I saw this link on my facebook thread. It is, to me, a very scary thing and a very sad thing to see. I left the following comment: "all these authoritarians love to trample a persons free speech under the guise of stopping hate speech. but i wonder what the cheerleaders of these policies will say when they get accused of hate speech when the definition starts to expand..."

I understand these sites have the right to police themselves since you have to agree to their terms of servers. Fine, I say, I'll find a social media plateform that holds free speech as their primary concern. And this is primarily why I'm here; I need suggestions. Is there such a thing?

This place is not a sanctuary for free speech lol.

[Kuntantee]

problem is who gets to chose what is and is not racist?

A judge.

/10 char.

[Daelak]

If you thought that bakeries existed to let you command them around as your personal slaves to bake whatever you want with no limits, then you probably didn't take the time to consider their terms of service.

If it is a bakery that is open to the public, read not a private members-only club, then yes, the must serve the public.