The obvious way around both of these arguments is to offer consumers more choices. If someone is censored from a particular platform, there needs to be another that they can use.
There are a tiiiiny number of companies that are controlling global communications, and that should make us all uncomfortable.
Being banned from one restaurant in town, should not mean you're banned from all restaurants in the world.
Right, but if you dress in a shirt with a Swastika you're going to get banned from every restaurant in town pretty quickly, and I don't think that is a bad thing.
If each one came to that decision separately, then sure, ban them. The problem arises when a company controls, say, 90% of the restaurants. And then ban you for no reason.
It's not a problem if people frequent the popular restaurants by choice. Maybe regular people aren't fans of restaurants whose main differentiating feature is their "swastika shirts welcome" sign.
So when Twitter starts to ban people for no reason, let's object then. The idea that we all have to start when they are banning Nazi's because of some slippery slope is ludicrous.
I know that you really meant Nazi insignia when saying "Swastika", but it still may interest you to see this page (with many pictures): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika
Swastikas have a rich cultural history from long before NSDAP.
EDIT: to all the down-voters, I am not sure why the down-votes, but I suspect doing a Web search for "japan swastika" or similar may enlighten you.
EDIT2: FTR, I did not think of my post as some supposed big revelation, rather I mostly wanted to share my appreciation for the various Swastika forms (as old graphical art); and also thought banning Swastikas in general might be insensitive to Asians.
I downvoted you primarily because it is irrelevant to the point GP was making. On top of that I didn¨t find it interesting as I think it's fairly wide known that they co-opted the icon.
> EDIT: to all the down-voters, I am not sure why the down-votes
Probably because the point you're trying to make here is 1) nitpicking a detail of a hypothetical example which wasn't particularly relevant to the discussion, and 2) the "but it's not always a symbol of hate" argument is a rather common neo-Nazi talking point.
You're not being down-voted because people don't believe you. You're being down-voted because you de-railed a discussion to insert a commonly-known fact as if it were some big revelation. We all know the swastika has a history outside Nazism, just like we know that you are unlikely to encounter an out-of-context swastika in the western world.
There are a tiiiiny number of companies that are controlling global communications, and that should make us all uncomfortable.
I don't think that quite describes the situation. Those with no money often have no recourse against Google, Facebook or CNN. But those with money whether individuals or corporation (even outside the media world), have many ways of shaping opinion, whether that shaping is public relations, SEO, media-creation or legal action.
Just during the time that Facebook has attempted to spread the standard, cautiously wide mainstream view of covid and the shutdown through their information center, I've received an ocean of polarizing false-claims about Covid and the shutdown through sponsored ads. Those ads cost money and they certainly show how today, money, any money, has a voice.
There are a tiny number of big companies in each field now. Usually four or less. Four big banks. Four big cable companies. Last week it became clear that only four big meat companies are left. Still five big movie studios, although ViacomCBS is much smaller than the big four.
There are other platforms. The issue isn't the platforms, they want the audience from one platform on other platforms as well. Consumers have the choice to use those other platforms, and people do actively use those other platforms. They just don't necessarily bring the same audience.
> Being banned from one restaurant in town, should not mean you're banned from all restaurants in the world.
So is the suggestion that I should be forced to serve people I don't want to serve?
The current US law regarding restaurants is in fact that an commercial establishment have very little freedom to refuse to save people based on who they are.
The problem with social media is that the big platforms, like the post office or your ISP often ends up as an natural monopoly that can be just as dangerous to your political freedoms as any out of control government department by virtue of being just as powerful in the real world.
> The current US law regarding restaurants is in fact that an commercial establishment have very little freedom to refuse to save people based on who they are.
To be clear, current US law protects things that one can not change about themselves eg: race --and even this is a bit of an oversimplification (see being gay or a woman)-- but it in no way prevents a restaurant from serving someone because of the attire they are wearing or the speech they are speaking.
exactly, think of a bartender refusing to serve a problematic former client a drink, or the bouncers not letting them in, due to them being specifically sanctioned.
private business absolutely has the right to refuse service to people over their behavior or expressed intentions.
the US first amendment protects against GOVERNMENTAL infringement.
in terms of this Twitter tempest-in-a-teapot, they ALSO have a right to free speech and Trumps demonstrably FALSE claims can absolutely be addressed, labeled as false, and that is an absolute right to free speech that Trump has already threatened with specious "governmental action" which PRECISELY violates both the letter and the spirit of the first amendment!
> The current US law regarding restaurants is in fact that an commercial establishment have very little freedom to refuse to save people based on who they are.
I was referring to non-protected classes of people.
For example, I have the right to refuse to serve someone who has written bad checks at my establishment, for example.
Or I have the right to refuse service to someone who has caused harm to my clients.
Which leads back to my question: Should I be forced to serve these people?
[EDIT] I'd love to hear a counter argument to go with the down votes. Have I failed to add any substance to this conversation? [/EDIT]
> So is the suggestion that I should be forced to serve people I don't want to serve?
Well, yes. Like a utility company.
It doesn't matter who is hooked up to the water/sewer/internet/etc., they get service. I think the platform/publisher debate needs to actually be had.
Right now Twitter/FB/etc. are acting like publishers (silencing some, ignoring others) rather than platforms. If they are going to take responsibility for what is on their platform, they need to take full responsibility (a publisher). Or, they need to take no responsibility, as far as that goes under the law (a platform, which I here conflate with utility).
As it stands, all of the major social media companies are biased to the US left, and they cater largely to the left [0][1]. When they silence, they silence the US political right. Or comments that are critical of the CCCP[2]. Or legitimate medical opinions about Covid-19[3].
I get it, but your wording in the OP missed that nuance. I was merely pointing out that as a society we have decided some reasons to refuse service are unacceptable. It is therefore a lot less inconceivable that other reasons might be considered unacceptable.
There are a tiiiiny number of companies that are controlling global communications, and that should make us all uncomfortable.
Being banned from one restaurant in town, should not mean you're banned from all restaurants in the world.