freedom of association isn't really a thing anymore; if one were to promote that maxim, a large portion of the civil rights laws, anti-discrimination laws, etc. just become unenforceable.

see stuff akin to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colora...

The idea of public accommodation is ultimately based on the notion that commercial appeals (such as a store window and an open door) constitute an 'invitation to treat' (do business) and that these should not be withheld from anyone on the basis of their unalterable personal characteristics.

> these should not be withheld from anyone on the basis of their unalterable personal characteristics

Where does this boundary lie?

Is political party unalterable? Ideology? Religion?

That depends who you ask. I don't think religion is unalterable, for example, but in the USA it holds a privileged legal position for historical reasons - although courts have concluded that merely claiming religious status is insufficient, eg https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/18/18-1141.pdf

In general the Us recognizes race/ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation (to some degree) and religion as 'suspect classes' deserving of protection. But it's a thorny subject and understanding all the different perspectives is going to require a lot of reading.

Hmm... so in your opinion, back in the days of the Hollywood blacklist, when Louis B. Mayer decided that he wasn't going to buy any more screenplays from communists (or anyone who even had friends who were communists), that was perfectly okay? "Freedom of association", right?

The truly bizarre thing about the "woke" movement is that they seem to have absolutely no conception that the stuff they're doing to others can just as easily be done to them.

It's confusing how you criticize leftists for not realizing that they could theoretically be the target of these attacks while citing an extremely well-known example of leftists being the target of these attacks.

Leftists are generally aware of this risk, because today there is no shortage of similar social pressure against leftist ideas, and do not think it's a concern. The problem is not that it's never occurred to them.

One reason why it's not a concern is that there's no reason to believe that a principled stand against this tactic by the left will have any influence on the right. Conservatives in Hollywood in the middle of the last century did not blacklist communists in response to any similar activity by communists; they did so spontaneously. So there's no reason to fear an increased risk of use of this tactic. Nobody is getting ideas they didn't already have.

This makes absolutely no sense, and to me proves just how ignorant the left are of what could happen to them.

Censorship always becomes about those in power staying in power. Look no further than wall street bets. That had nothing to do with left right but about control and power.

Of course no one in the mainstream media is willing to consider this, because apparently wsb is financial trumpism.

Wake up. This is what the aclu warned about 50 years ago.

First, it's not "criticism" to ask a clarifying question. I understand that not having a good answer makes you uncomfortable, but that's not "criticism".

Second, you do understand that it's possible to believe that both are bad, right?

I'm not uncomfortable, and I don't know why you think I am. I merely think you're factually incorrect in your assertion that the point you mention has not occurred to leftists.

I do understand that it's possible to believe both are bad. I am informing you that leftists do not. (There's probably a more general phenomenon where centrists say that tools that can be used towards bad ends are bad, and people of a particular partisan tendency say that bad ends are bad and not to be blamed on the tool. For instance, liberals are generally not in favor of expanded gun rights, because they understand that guns can be used towards bad ends. Leftists are generally in favor of expanded gun rights, because they understand that, and also understand that guns can be used towards good ends.)

Having had those things done to them, "the woke movement" isn't fooled by the argument "if you don't do these things to us, we won't do them to you."

Touched a nerve, didn't it?

You might be surprised at how fast this kind of thing can turn around.

Weird how people keep trying to warn the left of some slippery slope argument that is if a company deplatforms literal neonazis today then lgbt, progressives or what have you can easily be tomorrow!

Like another comment mentioned, it’s mind boggling that those making these arguments think those on the left aren’t aware of censorship, legal and societal, given how recently one could be persecuted for being too left and labeled a communist or arrested, ostracized and more for being lgtb.

I don’t believe those making the arguments actually believe the surface facade of pointing out “unconsidered information”, so there must be some alternative purpose to the argument. It almost be like trying to constantly remind someone who was shot and also lost someone of how dangerous guns are and that’s why even violent felons needs gun.

It’s also arguing victims should be glad they are continuing to be victimized and that they should help and defend their attackers.

Recommended reading:

https://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Movements-Pere...

Edit: more recommended reading:

http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

http://www.paulgraham.com/conformism.html

I’m not sure how you’re interpreting these, but if you are against businesses deplatforming those who express neonazi, and white nationalist propaganda I don’t think Paul Graham’s message supports you.

I doubt Paul graham equates neonazi propaganda with his examples of past situations where you could believe something that was later thought of as very wrong: “ how can you be sure you wouldn't also have believed everything you were supposed to if you had grown up among the plantation owners of the pre-Civil War South, or in Germany in the 1930s”

Are you saying that in 30 years that society will collectively think neonazi beliefs are correct and thus we were crazy to ostracize them? And you are saying that is why we should stop censoring them? Because in a future state we might live in a dystopia we should stop censoring the people trying to create the dystopia? And also that censoring neonazis is akin to those example like being anti slavery in the antebellum south? Is this your take away? Those arguments sound rather farcical and Paul himself actually explains why that is.

Paul says this: “Of course, we're not just looking for things we can't say. We're looking for things we can't say that are true, or at least have enough chance of being true that the question should remain open.“

There is no doubt about neonazi propaganda. Whether or not it is true is not an open question. White supremacist propaganda maybe being right is not an open question.

'Free speech' means nothing at all in the private sector - but 'supporting free speech' most definitely does. If a company opts to not support free speech (which is an ideal that I believe most Americans would say should be supported) by enacting censorship rules beyond what is illegal, they shouldn't be surprised when people that believe in that ideal look on them less favorably.

Any internet platform that didnt moderate would be overwhelmed with spam, porn, scams, hate, etc. Censorship and moderation are the same, a set of rules you must follow to participate. Gab is has huge problems with porn spam because of free speech policies.

Imagine if email providers were not allowed to filter. Your email would be totally unusable.

Enacting no filters beyond what's illegal would make most of the internet unusable. Like imagine if HN had no moderation? It would lose its original purpose.

So what do you mean support free speech exactly? Allow people to freely post porn, scams, lies, death threats?

By supporting free speech I support the right for us to say what we will without fear of retribution from the government. By supporting freedom of association I support that company’s can ban you for saying things they don’t agree with. Aren’t Gab and Parker right wing libertarian free market success stories? People found Twitter didn’t agree with their views so they founded a competitor.

> By supporting freedom of association I support that company’s can ban you for saying things they don’t agree with

The US already limit companies "Right of Association" by virtue of things like Providers of Last Resort (that's the extent of my knowledge on this topic in the context of America) so it's not an alien concept.

Do you feel that the electricity company should be able to cut off your power supply because you made a blog post they don't agree with? How about your mobile phone provider? And if not, why are online services treated any differently?

I presented an example along those lines, but more apt. I noticed you didn’t explain why you thought it was less applicable. And yes, the internet service provider should not be able to monitor your communication and selectively block it.

But why do should people be forced to associate with neonazis against their will? Expressing neonazi and white nationalist propaganda does not make one a a protected class so businesses are free to refuse to provide them service. Does McDonald’s have the right to refuse service to cater a klan rally?

> I noticed you didn’t explain why you thought it was less applicable.

I'm not actually sure where I stand on the issue in it's totality, I try to prevent myself from giving a knee-jerk response simply because the example being used is emotionally inflammatory. I do feel it's more a gradient than a binary issue though.

Edit: Upon re-reading, I misinterpreted this question sorry. The example you supplied might be as apt, but it's just one end of the spectrum. I also can't help but feel that it's like comparing my local Cafe (Switch Cafe in New Brighton, if you're interested) to McDonalds and calling it a free-market success story.

> But why do should people be forced to associate with neonazis against their will?

Why should a company - which is not a person, and something I think is being overlooked in this discussion - be forced to associate with anyone against their will? As I previously mentioned, there are several industries that can't refuse their service and there are several classes to which no industry may refuse their service. If we are looking for justification, I suggest we use the same logic applied in those cases.

> Does McDonald’s have the right to refuse service to cater a klan rally?

Obviously. I'm not sure where this is leading though, so I'll wait before commenting further.

Not an argument I want to have but I feel compelled to express.

While the ideology is terrible, hateful, close minded, harmful, etc, we tolerate their right to speech because no one knows when you might be the next “Neo Nazi”. A flick of the switch politically, and TPTB might find that LGBT speech is hateful. Perhaps people new to the tech industry don’t remember a time when being a computer nerd was anti-social, and clashed with the norms of society. Sure there are consequences to this ideology. People can get hurt and people’s lives can be impacted. But that is the price to live in a free society. Speaking to your last question, I think McDonalds should absolutely have the right to refuse service to a Klan member. But if I was in charge of McDonalds I would serve them. Because IMHO the outcome of a society where speech is no longer free, either by corporate cancel culture or government regulation, is not a society I want to live in.

Slippery slopes for everyone one. And a ceo that thinks catering klan rallies makes good business would soon find it their only business. Oh wait that’s what gab and Parler is doing!

And that “perhaps people new to...etc” is a nice backhanded appeal to authority and it falls flat.

Edit: hacker news has rigorously enforced comment guidelines, why is that okay? Why is it not bad per what you say: > “ Because IMHO the outcome of a society where speech is no longer free, either by corporate cancel culture or government regulation, is not a society I want to live in.”

I don’t disagree with comment guidelines. Their platform, their rules. But my point is if it was my platform, I wouldn’t moderate it any more than the law requires: Imminent threats of violence, illegal pornography, libel, etc. I guess I would probably go beyond and ask people not to Dox others, and ask others not to bully or disparage one another. I find it no different from two people discussing communism in a private bar or restaurant, provided they are not harassing other customers

Ultimately, as a business owner, it’s not my (our?) job to direct culture. In fact it is kind of disturbing someone with enough money could change society to their whims. I’m here to create value for myself and the people around me. Political crusades are best left outside the professional/corporate environment.

Value isn't just a one dimensional thing where some business endeavours create less value or more value. There are different kinds of value that have different utility in different contexts.

Once you have that epiphany you can see that creating value for yourself and the people around you is a form of directing culture and vice-versa.

What if other people exploit your platform in order to direct culture, though? If you run a bar and after a year or two you realize that all of your patrons are nazis, presumably because their passionate discussions drove away anyone who overheard them, then any action you take to promote your bar is effectively promoting that ideology and directing culture in a rather unsavory direction. What do you do then?

You don't need to actually own a platform to leverage it for your side in a culture war, you only need to know how to exploit it. If you want your platform to be neutral, you need to monitor and moderate it carefully: if you don't choose what culture permeates your platform, others will be glad to choose for you, and I think it's foolish to think it'll be any better.

> If you run a bar and after a year or two you realize that all of your patrons are nazis

It could also mean that nazis like your bar.

I've seen this argument get politicized too much to the point of it being emotional. Like your nazi reference.

Social platforms should be moderated according to law. Whatever users legally & lawfully discuss in your platforms should not restricted. And this kind of applying pressure towards platforms worries me. They are merely tools. Let the law deal with this issue and leave free speech alone.

The problem is that big tech and social media companies don’t have competition. They are either monopolistic/oligopolistic or are shielded from new competition due to network effects protecting incumbents. They’re also immense in power and scope and influence. They’re pseudo governments in that their actions (like censorship) are for all practical purposes, as impactful as an actual government. They’re necessary to our lives and are also utilities in that sense. And so they should be regulated and required to support everyone who doesn’t explicitly break the law, like a public agency.

If you're planning on a violent assault on others, all those protections disappear. Free speech has well established limitations that are pretty easy to understand.

I don't believe anything I've said contradicts that position.

You keep trying to associate Parler and Gab as supporters of free speech. Parler was shut down because it refused to moderate content that incited violence. Gab's browser extension Dissenter was removed from Google and Firefox for the same reason: unmoderated content that often featured calls to violence.

These platforms are being used by white nationalists and other extremists to normalize their hateful ideology and encourage violence against anyone with different gender orientations, nationality, ethnicity, or religious beliefs.

Gab and Parler have zero interest in free speech as a human right. They want unlimited free speech for acceptable groups (mostly white straight Christians) and no rights for anyone else.

Users on those platforms have posted their intent to hurt and kill others, that content was never moderated, and those users carried out acts of violence. Companies who don't want to be associated with that have disconnected their services ahead of the inevitable legal action to shut the services down.

Literally no one in the US has had their electricity or phone cut off because of a "disagreeable blog post." It's a ridiculous example to bring up in the sea of information about what's going on in those forums.

People have felt so unheard they've taken to the streets in violence. We've seen riots all through the last year up to and including the incident on Jan 6. When people feel unheard it reliably leads to violence. That is why, when it comes to my eyes and dollars, I support platforms that support free speech. In different times I might lean towards freedom of association.

The argument I've heard from friends on the left opposed to free speech is that barely-moderated forums inevitably turn into "white supremacist" sites.

"friends on the left opposed to free speech" is your willful misunderstanding of the issue

It seems like there's plenty of "willful misunderstanding" from folk on both sides of the political spectrum. It seems like two sides of the same coin to me, and it doesn't really matter too much because ultimately the carnival game is rigged to eat the coin regardless. Whether you're a neo-nazi or a marxist-commie, we're all slightly awkward but reasonable nerds here right? I think most sane people can agree that data breaches are bad, and that black hat hackers are bad guys and white hat hackers are good guys?

Speaking of finding common ground, I thought the recent GME schenanigans were notable in that folk on both extremes of the political spectrum seemed to agree that it was fun "sticking it to the man". Was anyone here not cheering the "irrational" retail traders on?

Genuinely, I want to find common ground with people who don't say anyone who isn't a neo-nazi is ALL THE WAY LEFT AND A DANGEROUS PERSON

Maybe you could start by realizing the vast majority of people on the right aren’t neo-nazis.

"I won't acknowledge that neo-nazis are a problem"

Sorry, did I misunderstand you?

Not all people on the far right are Neo-Nazis, but all Neo-Nazis are on the far right.

You aren't coming across as genuine, though. Textual communication loses a lot of subtlety, but you figuratively started screaming mid-sentence. Is it fair to assume that people in the past have treated you like a dangerous person? Were you screaming at them? Were you trying to shame them into condemning something, thus forcing them to either submit themselves to you, or seemingly be implicated as the terrible thing you're calling them to condemn?

If you really intended to be genuine in your desire to find common ground with folk of differing political views from your own, I once again invite you to share your personal beliefs on the topic of societal damage caused by data breaches, or your thoughts on the recent GME stock market manipulation.

Hey, I'm willing to have that discussion, sure. I am accepting the challenge to accept the rules of engagement you dictated.

Are you willing to accept the challenge of accepting the rules of engagement I put forth - Acknowledge that neo-nazis are a problem, briefly state why?

---

I think the GME stuff is a bit nuts, personally. I found the whole thing entertaining, but I find it hard to believe that most participants won't be hurt in some way in the long run. I'm not sure how much small time investors understand that. Optimistically, maybe this is a collective learning experience that does minimal harm to a large number of people, and we all come away from the experience with a better idea of how the stock market works. Maybe then we can make better informed electoral decisions? Feels a bit too optimistic, but hey.

Better than meme stocks vs hedge funds, imo, would be to have a working system for accountability and enforcement at the SEC- been lacking for decades, from what I understand.

-------

Societal damage caused by data breaches. Idk, it's a bit large as a topic. Do I like that a bunch of personal data just got dumped? Not the biggest fan, no. I wouldn't want it to happen to me, certainly.

I do think it's useful to have the data there to show how much the platform is for hate and organizing around hate. It seems like there should be a better way to expose this kind of thing.

----

I'd be surprised if you also engage in a genuine discussion on your own terms.

I love surprises, but I've been on the internet long enough not to expect them.

> I do think it's useful to have the data there to show how much the platform is for hate and organizing around hate.

I think for a proper useful evaluation, we equally need to see a similar full dump from other platforms like Facebook, Twitter etc. who are the standard when it comes to social media.

I am personally not too convinced the content is that different, but rather some platforms just have more diverse political allegiances.

Well no not at the outset, but we know fb, to follow this example, pays a small army of moderators. I suspect that has some kind of measurable effect.

I honestly think we do at the outset and especially before we evaluate.

The full history would also tell us if these ideas were more common when they're smaller network but when they grow they aren't etc.

The other thing we need to evaluate is if these platforms are just made of people banned from primary platforms and if that's the case, are these platforms really responsible for the surge of these types of people and perhaps what is a way to fix these societal issues as they continue to exist rather than disappear?

Gab and Parler have moderators too too, but the content they moderate is a lot more refined. I suspect proportionally, they're actually more to a per user ratio than FB or Twitter.

It seems initial looks at platforms like Facebook aren't too promising, https://eu.usatoday.com/story/tech/2021/03/03/facebook-extre...

I invited you to share your opinions one way or another on two topics that I believe largely have common ground, and I appreciate your responses on both topics. I don't think it's comparable for you to challenge me with a "loaded question" that inherently puts me on the defensive, based on assumptions and false premises that I can't challenge without escalating the conversation into an argument. Do you see the difference there?

An equivalent prompt for discussion on the topic of neo-naziism would perhaps be, "I believe that neo-naziism is a problem. Do you agree with me? Why or why not?" I'll happily respond to that.

I think neo-naziism is one of the many appalling and terrible extremist ideologies that exist in the world, and people that willingly engage in it are bad people. In the general sense, it's certainly a problem; the world would be a better place if neo-nazis didn't exist. Within the context of politics in the United States, it's hard to say that it's a genuine problem. I'm an American, and I don't know of anyone within any degree of separation that would be fairly considered a neo-nazi, or is afflicted by neo-naziism. I live on the coast, though, and so may be in a bubble that's out of touch with other parts of the country. From my point of view, I think the problem is more that neo-naziism is a label that has been weaponized by the political left to rally their base against the political right. It seems comparable to the political right labeling their opponents as similarly nasty things to rally their base against the political left. I think it's about as likely that neo-naziism is a widespread concern within the political right as much as it is likely that the political left has a problem with child eating demon worshippers. It all seems like nonsense that doesn't match reality.

I agree with you on GME that it's unfortunate if anyone created a financial hardship for themselves by investing when they didn't understand the situation. I also agree that government oversight that actually functions effectively within its purpose would be way better than what we have now. I'm curious what your thoughts are on cryptocurrencies like bitcoin? I personally hate them, mainly for the environmental waste that proof-of-work algorithms create, but also for the blatant disregard for the majority of the world population's traditionally accumulated wealth.

I am thankful that you took the time to enumerate that you don't share neo-nazi ideology. I think that right now, it makes a bigger difference than it has in the past to state it out loud.

For reference: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...

The FBI disagrees with you quite a bit on whether neo-nazis & co are a problem.

This is why I insist so much. This is why so many on the left insist so much on this particular test. Pretending the problem isn't a problem is a thing that is actively causing harm to the country.

These friends overtly say that free speech should be limited, in those exact terms. Not some speech, "free speech". Please let me know how you perceive me to be misunderstanding them willfully.

I think you might want to listen to them more closely, I can't answer on their behalf.

If, by chance, they're anything like me, then I agree that there's giant categories of prohibited speech that should remain so. Lying about medicine, slander, libel, incitement to violence to name a few.

They want the first amendment repealed as they say it protects racists, homophobes and transphobes. They say that liberal free speech laws led to Trump and free speech should be curtailed for that reason. They openly say that they are opposed to free speech. I am trying to present their views as neutrally as I can, but this is what they say and support.

Maybe it’s a bit “one true Scotsmanny” but there are many who identify left or right who fall in the bottom 10% of well thought out perspectives. Being on the left does not make your friends immune and they may fall into that tier if their argument is portrayed accurately. They get the general gist of things right, I.e. neonazi propaganda is harmful, but go about things in a hamfisted manner.

Yeah I can't say I agree with your friends if that's indeed what they meant. The first amendment is incredibly important. So is the jurisprudence around what it means.

I have a suspicion that there might be a communication barrier somewhere between you and your friends. I'm a bit out on a limb here, so forgive my presumptions if they're off base. I mean no offense.

It's possible that your friends have learned that, when talking to you, 'free speech' is only worth defending when it's offensive, neo-nazi style speech. Then, without making explicit the change in vocabulary usage, they run with it -- ending up in a bad spot where they're saying get rid of 1st Amendment. There's no winners in this story, just unfortunate misunderstandings.

Again, disregard if this is nonsense. I've been witness to similar disagreements in the past, so I'm offering my 2c since I think you're making the good faith effort to represent, even while exasperated, the views of your friends.

So free speech should include incitement of violence? Slander and libel?