2020 Disunited States of America Election

[xerx]

Making Twitter unban Trump is like making a baker bake a gay cake. Both are forms of compelled political expression.


For the record, I don't think that he should have been banned. That is, however, a pertinent analogy.

[Aramas]

Making Twitter unban Trump is like making a baker bake a gay cake. Both are forms of compelled political expression.


For the record, I don't think that he should have been banned. That is, however, a pertinent analogy.

Would you make a baker bake a cake for a black couple?

[xerx]

Would you make a baker bake a cake for a black couple?

I absolutely would. It's wrong for a baker to refuse service to someone just because they're black (or gay). If a black (or gay) couple wants to buy a generic cake, there shouldn't be any barriers.

But there's an added layer to this question that usually gets overlooked. Refusing to sell a cake is different from refusing to write specific text on a cake; if a business doesn't want to offer that product, it shouldn't have to. By extension, a different baker can refuse to bake a "conservative Christian" cake.

[Adam Strange]

Would you make a baker bake a cake for a black couple?

Personally, I would not. I don't have anything against black people, but I also don't think that people in business should have to work for people they don't like.

However, I'm fortunately not making the laws. Above my petty feelings of hatred towards asshole customers is the law in this country which says that, in return for the government protections that businesses enjoy, they must treat everyone equally under the law. They may not discriminate against a person for something that that person can't change. Like being Black. Or Jewish. Or left-handed.

They don't have to serve a person who is naked, or who is shooting people, or is calling for the overthrow of the US government, because a person presumably has some control over those things and could change them if they wanted to. But everyone else, they have to treat without discrimination.

Here's the thing about that law. It gives everyone equal access to society's resources. Some smart people decided that that is a good thing and encoded it into law, and I grudgingly agree with them, after spending time in South Africa and seeing for myself what happens to a society that is ostensibly "separate but equal", but in reality is some very stupid immigrants running the place and keeping most of the other citizens out of the club.

If you don't have a shot at the top slot, you have no reason to support the system that keeps you down. I get that. I've seen that. I think the rioters believe that, too, even though most of them are not thinking globally about just what they are doing. They want to "take the country back". Back from whom? And for whose benefit?
They don't ever explain that part. For good reason.

These laws aren't there to keep Italians in power or to put communists in every school district governing board. They are there to prevent revolution. Because if you get enough people who feel like they are not getting a fair deal, you are building an army to overthrow the government.

My personal wish is that the powers that be in this country take this as a wake up call, and start doing more for the economically disadvantaged. The rich have been screwing the middle class for a long time, while supporting the poorest classes. Granted, support for the poorest people is minimal, but percentage-wise, incomes for the poor and incomes for the rich have been rising, and incomes for the middle class have been flat.

Anyone who tells you that this is free markets at work is lying to you because they think you are stupid. Call your representatives, vote with your wallet, and change the trend.

[End]

Personally, I would not. I don't have anything against black people, but I also don't think that people in business should have to work for people they don't like.

My personal wish is that the powers that be in this country take this as a wake up call, and start doing more for the economically disadvantaged. The rich have been screwing the middle class for a long time, while supporting the poorest classes. Granted, support for the poorest people is minimal, but percentage-wise, incomes for the poor and incomes for the rich have been rising, and incomes for the middle class have been flat.

Anyone who tells you that this is free markets at work is lying to you because they think you are stupid. Call your representatives, vote with your wallet, and change the trend.

You make several good points, but you and I both know that ain't gonna happen. Our elites are totally disconnected from the lowly "proles" they presume to rule over in almost every conceivable way. Hell, they cannot even into how effective rules are made and, more importantly, enforced. Though I wouldn't say they supported the poor classes. Indeed, they hate them too and fucked them over just as hard, but in more abstract ways that most fail to perceive or realize.

This is a whole essay in the making on this topic but suffice it to say our current ruling elite is unfit, unable, and unworthy to effectively rule in the long term from here. Like I said, the Mandate of Heaven is now forfeit. The successful revolt that will overthrow and replace this current system is already underway. My wish is that those who succeed in that endeavor will look back upon the mistakes of the last few centuries and actually, for what amounts to the first time in history, actually learn from it in a way that actually benefits our entire species for once instead of insisting upon repeating for the billionth time the four most expensive words (in whatever/however way you wish to see it) in the English Language:

"This Time, It's Different"

No. It's NOT!

Sadly, I think the Buddhists have a saying. "The lesson will be repeated until it is learned." Can't say I'm seeing much to dissuade me from the truth of that statement. We, as a species, never seem to learn the lesson and thus it just keeps getting repeated...

[Adam Strange]

Snapchat just terminated Trump's account.

https://techcrunch.com/2021/01/09/th...f-a-president/

Trump's advisors in the White House say he is clueless about what his actions surrounding the Capitol siege or his impeachment means for his Presidency, but he's worried that it will hurt his business. No word from him on the people who died in the riot. Four of the people who died were, according to their close relatives, his most ardent supporters. You'd think he'd say something.
Maybe he'll get around to thinking about them after his next golf outing. Or maybe not.

[SGF]

Making Twitter unban Trump is like making a baker bake a gay cake. Both are forms of compelled political expression.


For the record, I don't think that he should have been banned. That is, however, a pertinent analogy.

For the record I don't think Twitter should unban anyone including Trump, I think we should ban Twitter, Facebook, Amazon, Google because they are illegal corporate monopolies with too much power.
The bake the cake argument is mute when when we are dealing with corporations such as google who has half the planet by the balls through sheer dependency.

[xerx]

The bake the cake argument is mute when when we are dealing with corporations such as google who has half the planet by the balls through sheer dependency.

In general, the fact that tech. giants are monopolies spoils the analogy—I agree with that. In this instance, the president has access to other channels, which saves the analogy; he can call a press conference or go on Fox News virtually anytime that he wants.

[squark]

Making Twitter unban Trump is like making a baker bake a gay cake. Both are forms of compelled political expression.


For the record, I don't think that he should have been banned. That is, however, a pertinent analogy.

Unless that baker is part of a global baking monopoly that actively colludes with other food industry monopolies to shut down all competition so there's nowhere else to go, they're not the same. You can go to another baker. But when people tried to go to alternative social media (Gab, Parler) that's when Google, Apple, Amazon and even Visa/Mastercard colluded to shut those avenues down.

Also, Twitter wants to have the protected rights of a public forum, while preventing large groups from entering that forum. Either they are a public forum, or they're not. You can't have it both ways.

Edit: Just saw your post

In general, the fact that tech. giants are monopolies spoils the analogy—I agree with that. In this instance, the president has access to other channels, which saves the analogy; he can call a press conference or go on Fox News virtually anytime that he wants.

Trump can, the vast numbers of other people getting kicked off cannot. That's why I keep stressing that it isn't just him, and it's been happening for quite awhile and is most likely going to keep happening and get worse. People only notice because it's him. They don't notice when it's some random nobody, or even thousands of nobodies, but they should.

[xerx]

Edit: Just saw your post
Trump can, the vast numbers of other people getting kicked off cannot. That's why I keep stressing that it isn't just him, and it's been happening for quite awhile and is most likely going to keep happening and get worse. People only notice because it's him. They don't notice when it's some random nobody, or even thousands of nobodies, but they should.

Right.

I agree that social media shouldn't ban political opinions, and that doing so sets a dangerous precedent. It’s also the case that people need to hear clashing opinions from others in order to better understand their own. ‘Freedom’ is just as much a personal attitude (one of openness to inquiry and self-examination) as it is a set of external circumstances. Moreover, I don’t believe that bans will address the fake news crisis, which can only be mitigated (it’ll never be solved) by better education, more transparency, and higher living standards. This is why I believe that it was wrong to ban Donald Trump.

That said, there is a deeper issue here which routinely goes unacknowledged:

For a private institution, the requirement to safeguard freedom of speech isn’t a legal duty; it is a moral one that flows from a gentleman’s agreement to be an open-minded, inquisitive, and reasonable participant in a democratic society.

Yet the person being censored fails to live up to his own end of that agreement. He rarely dissuades the violent or conspiratorial tendencies of his supporters; instead, he energizes them with rhetoric about the necessity of ‘strength’ and the cowardice of compromise in the face of a merciless enemy. That is neither open-minded nor reasonable. He leads his supporters on and refuses to take responsibility for their actions.

Let’s reverse the situation. Let’s suppose that Trump was banned by some random Twitter employee. Could Jack Dorsey get away with saying “It’s not my problem; I didn’t do it and don't have to reverse the decision”? You and I know both that he’d be slandered for not running a tight ship. Yet Donald Trump is consistently allowed to circumvent the same expectations.

It is deeply dishonest to demand that one side act in accordance with principle while eliding the social responsibilities of the other side.



>> As an aside, it’s worth noting that the monopoly of tech. firms is somewhat overstated because of the presence of other social media platforms, as well as the existence of bitcoin. It doesn't make their actions any less wrong, of course, but the Internet, as a whole, is still very much decentralized and free.