So by parity of reasoning, companies that pollute within the bounds of the EPA's restrictions are also perfectly within their legal rights, and so shouldn't be chastised or further regulated, right?
Of course that's nonsense, because we're all interested in a better civilization, which occasionally means reviewing and accounting for the negative externalities of which we might have been previously unaware.
So please stop using this point against people raising concerns over how corporations are acting. There are legitimate concerns over the negative externalities of policing speech and banning people on private platforms with no recourse for appeal.
(Sure, there are slippery slope arguments about what happens if speech is not permitted on any media or if media companies are permitted monopoly power, but since Forza car designs are pretty far from that scenario, government intervention based on the assumption that computer game-designers do not have rights to curate their world or that displayers of the Confederate flag deserve special protections falls down much slipperier slopes of eroding property rights or enforcing [unpleasant] speech)
Attack the strongest interpretation of an argument, not the weakest. Your choice to focus on this flag incident and ignore the wider context that I described of platforms of all kinds censoring speech and banning people reveals the flaw in this sort of response.
This is but one more example of a trend, and the trend is what should be alarming. One should rightly be suspicious of any claim that a specifically bad storm, or a specific heat wave was caused by global warming, but one should be very alarmed at the growing trend of worsening storms and increasing incidents of heat waves.
Sure, happens all the time. You think waitresses and restaurant managers like belligerent customers? They often tolerate them anyway.
Like I said, this specific instance wouldn't concern me at all if it weren't for the over-arching trend, and my post was specifically targeting a (frankly hypocritical) type of reply that comes up every time this topic is broached.
That would get laughed out of the SCOTUS in an instant.
It's quite literally not a non-sequitur. The parity of reasoning in both cases is clear: they are the same argument, I just swapped the details.
Every good regulation is intended to address some negative externality. Before a regulation is enacted, people point out the negative externalities and how they're harmful and that we should do something about them. Maybe they have some idea what that entails, maybe they don't.
You can't consistently dismiss such concerns by arguments like, "it's private property", while simultaneously supporting other regulations, like those enforced by the EPA, that also restrict one's rights to use one's property.
> unless you want the federal government to enact laws that enable them to micro manage every form of communication
I don't know what a good solution would be, I just know negative externalities in this case do exist. You can continue to deny them, you can accept that they exist but deny their importance, or you can accept they exist and that they are important, and so participate in a dialogue about how they should be addressed.
Basically, I'm just saying I found the grandparent a bit... overkill ;-)
If this incident happened in a vacuum, I would agree. Unfortunately that isn't the case. The censorship ranges from mild to extreme these days, and now even the mild cases drive the wedge deeper. The unrest in the US is only just beginning I think.
Anyway, the post to which I initially replied is a common response to private censorship, and the irony of arguing that private companies should be able to do anything with their private property apparently escapes most people who make it. "Oh, private property, right. So let's eliminate the minimum wage then, because that money they wouldn't otherwise pay to fill a role is the corporation's private property. No? Is private property suddenly not the only thing that matters?"
You might not like it, but that is the current reality. Personally I like it. I would much rather have corporations decide which speech is allowable on their platforms than have the government decide which speech is allowable.
This is not quite correct. Corporations used to be bound by their own charter until Congress relaxed those restrictions. Congress makes the rules under which corporations can operate. The Supreme Court ruled on how the current rules should be interpreted against the Constitution, but those rules are fairly arbitrary.
In any case, I'm not even suggesting "taking away their free speech rights".
> I would much rather have corporations decide which speech is allowable on their platforms than have the government decide which speech is allowable.
This is a false dichotomy.
So is Facebook and yet those applauding this are up-in-arms about FB's policies. Seems like a double standard.
I don't believe you really meant what you said there. Private companies aren't allowed to ban users because of their race. Do you want them to have that freedom and allow segregation? Or perhaps you only accept that because it's already the law and you would have opposed civil rights laws had you been around before they were introduced?
Most people's beliefs about right and wrong are arbitrary, not based on any fundamental principles, and there really isn't much of a defense for them other than "well, that just happens to be what I believe."
Discrimination against race or another protected class falls outside of the "legal bounds of the ToS".
They already accounted for the case you're trying to argue against.
It _is_ private property. The companies in question are just exerting their rights. The users agreed to the ToS while signing up, and it's perfectly reasonable for them to cut off your access to their service, as long as it's within the legal bounds of the ToS. I don't think companies should be directly regulated/penalized for banning users. I do think however, that people should be more conscious of what they're signing up for. Consumer protection law should protect consumers, not their convenience.