zlacker

>>etc-ho+(OP)
The number of people trying to defend what is, at best, extremely childish behavior is fascinating to me. Would you really go up to your city counselor in real life and tell them you wish death on them and their family, and pretend it's OK because it's an obscure reference to 90s rap (mind you the rap song WAS an actual death threat)? Do you think you'd be met with laughter? Do you actually consider that socially acceptable behavior?

If you dislike their politics, so be it - donate to campaigns or personally run against them. Write a letter explaining how you'd like them to vote.. But the amount of absolute crass behavior people allow "because it's the internet" is mind boggling.

>>tw04+ka
Freedom of speech entails allowing for speech you dislike and find abhorrent. Just be honest and say you are against freedom of speech, and you are in favor of compelled speech. SV types have this weird politeness shtick.

>>mise_e+rg
Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences. You can't say whatever assholish thing you want and then claim freedom of speech as a shield when it inevitably pisses people off.

This is not a freedom of speech issue, it's a "CEOs shouldn't be idiots" issue.

>>CydeWe+5h
> Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequences

Why do people always say this? Yes, it’s true - and it’s also just flexing your power and ability to crush any speech you deem should have “consequences”.

Free speech advocates are trying to push for a consistent, fairly applied position (which is very noble but imo untenable - I’m not a free speech advocate) and often met with a response that’s essentially “you have no power and I do, so if I dislike what you’re saying I’m going to crush you”.

>>dhdidi+Mi
There's a difference between what type of consequences we're talking about.

Individuals judging you and making personal decisions on how to relate to you?

Or society making decisions to withdraw necessary services?

This is where firmly distinguishing between (individual freedom to associate / decide) and (social responsibility to deliver a necessary service) needs more clarity.

Should I be allowed to picket on public property in front of someone's house I disagree with? Or refuse to provide a service to them because I don't like them? IMHO, probably.

Should the city be allowed to turn off their electricity and water? IMHO, probably not.

Should VISA and Twitter be allowed to ban them? ... oof. That's a toughy.

>>ethbr1+Ij
I agree except the last part. Of course they should. It's _their_ freedom of speech. Otherwise you'd compel them to spread speech they don't agree with.

>>malerm+8n
Would you say there's any scale / level-of-necessary-ness at which a private party should acquire must-serve responsibilities?

Such responsibilities at some point seem an inherent consequence of running an economy where (1) companies are allowed to grow as big as they want & (2) "social" functions (i.e. services to all) are sometimes only provided by private parties (there is no government/public alternative).

* Leaving aside the protected-classes argument

>>ethbr1+7p
My personal opinion is a bit complicated.

I'm a socialist that thinks that companies should be transitioned into public ownership once they grow big enough.

It fixes the issue you describe in addition to the myriad of other issues associated with ever-increasing privatizion of what should be the commons.

>>malerm+mq
That's certainly an answer.

And I really agree that the crux is "big enough" -- at some point, a phase change happens and regulation for social good needs to change too ('too big to be free'?).

We could pro/con public vs private-but-regulated management, but that's a dead horse and they're both valid options.