It must be made illegal on “social media” to deny service to people who say things that are not illegal to say

I have been meaning to get into this for a while because I keep hearing the same mantra that since these social media platforms are privately owned they can do as they like. Well speaking for myself, I don’t think that at all. People don’t sign up for Facebook or Twitter, or open a blog post on some commercial website, building up their own profile based on knowing the political ideology of the people who set the platform up. They are therefore in danger of having quite a bit of the value they have created stolen from them because of some political preference harboured by the people who run the platform. Once these forms of social communication are established and individuals are asked to join and build their own online presence on these platforms, the law must do as I say in the title, it must make it illegal to suspend or deny service to people because they say things the proprietors of such platforms disagree with but which are not in themselves illegal to say.

So let me choose a couple of recent examples of how things are working out. The Rebel is a Canadian online broadcasting website that entirely devotes its resources to defending conservative positions in the media. Quite large in Canada, and now with a presence in Australia, but hardly at the level of the government-funded CBC. But this was in the news just this week: The Rebel disrupted as it loses its domain provider. The story is from The National Post:

The ultra-conservative online Canadian media outlet The Rebel reportedly went dark in some parts of the world Monday after a technology company stopped directing traffic to its site.

Rebel proprietor Ezra Levant told Reuters he was given 24 hours notice of — but no explanation for — the move.

“If this was a political censorship decision, it is terrifying — like a phone company telling you it is cancelling your phone number on 24 hours notice because it doesn’t like your conversations,” Levant told Reuters. He did not identify the company.

It is terrifying, and if and when they come back online, you may be sure they will be more circumspect thereafter. The voices on our side are being thinned down while those on the other are amplified at every turn.

Then there’s Facebook. People go onto Facebook to keep up with family and friends, and some of those people think and say things that your standard issue modern lefty doesn’t like to hear said. Things that are perfectly legal and legitimate to say, but which many of those on the left do not approve of. Here is the principle that needs to apply: If you can say it on a published printed page you must be able to say it on Facebook, and if others don’t like it, they don’t have to read it. Meanwhile Zuckerberg is angling to run for president in 2020 as a Democrat.

This is from Facebook’s Community Standard on Hate Speech:

Facebook removes hate speech, which includes content that directly attacks people based on their:

race,
ethnicity,
national origin,
religious affiliation,
sexual orientation,
sex, gender or gender identity, or
serious disabilities or diseases.

Organisations and people dedicated to promoting hatred against these protected groups are not allowed a presence on Facebook. As with all of our standards, we rely on our community to report this content to us.

What is an “attack”? And who judges? Each and every time, the adjudicators are from a left, if not a far-left perspective. Two things should therefore happen. First, these tech providers must be open to being sued for suspending and forcibly closing accounts unless the company can prove in court that what was being said could not be legally said in public. Second, these are now part of modern social infrastructure in the same way as banks and hospitals. They must be compelled by law to accept and maintain on an equal basis anyone who wishes to participate in their services. This is not something the market can or will fix. There can be only one Facebook. It only works if everyone can join. If the proprietors of Facebook don’t want to work within the new rules, then they can sell up to someone else who does.

So let’s see how this sort of thing works at the moment. This is from Instapundit. And note the author of the post self-describes himself in this way:

#Republican candidate for US Senate. Radical philosopher & social critic. Captain, lawyer, agitator, rebel. The most dangerous #Libertarian in America.

That is, a prime candidate to end up banned at Facebook. This is what did it.

Just got banned from for posting this to my campaign page. Not politically motivated at all …

Do you not see a problem that needs to be fixed? Then keep your head in the sand. I’m not sure it can be fixed, but to think the market will self-correct is just a form of self-delusion.

And then there was this: After Charlottesville, Even Dating Apps Are Cracking Down on Hate. From which:

The Silicon Valley companies that make money off social media and online services have started to enact strong measures against extremism, barring white nationalists, white supremacists, neo-Nazis and others who follow creeds they deem racist and hateful.

Facebook and Twitter have developed tools to allow users to report hate speech and harassment. PayPal has blocked hate groups from using its financial services, and the ride-hailing services Uber and Lyft have urged drivers to report unacceptable customers. Airbnb took steps to stop white nationalists from renting rooms through its app before their gathering in Charlottesville, Va.

Most remarkably, perhaps, the efforts have even spread to the free-wheeling world of dating apps, where users have for years been welcome to screen potential lovers based on everything from height to religious beliefs.

And to be more specific OkCupid Banned Me for Supporting Our President by Cassandra Fairbanks.

While on vacation in Florida, I was informed by other Twitter users that my OkCupid account — which is largely inactive — has been suspended. This was presumably due to my open support for President Donald Trump.

On the weekend following the disastrous Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, I had been scheduled to speak at a rally in support of free speech in Boston. Despite many of the speakers being people of color, and the most exciting speaker of the day being Va Shiva from India who addressed the crowd while standing in front of signs that read “Black Lives Do Matter,” the rally was falsely labeled a “white supremacist” rally by the liberal media and the city’s joke of a mayor, Marty Walsh.

Threats and accusations immediately rolled in, from hundreds of people who just blindly follow whatever the mainstream media tells them — and suddenly I was branded a “Nazi” for daring to agree to speak at a rally supporting our most important right. It was exactly what Trump supporters had worried would happen following the “punch a Nazi” meme. All it takes to now be tarred as “literally Hitler,” no matter the color of your skin or actual political beliefs, is support for our president. . . .

I have reached out to OkCupid to confirm that my ban was due to supporting the president — as obviously they will be unable to provide a shred of evidence that I am racist or belong to a “hate group.” The company had not responded by press time.

She then adds at the end what I think is the biggest mistake we make: “I personally believe that companies have a right to deny service to anyone they want.”

Well I do not. Is it illegal to say what these people say? Then you just have to put up with the possibility that if you go on a dating site, you might end up paired with a Democrat. After the interview date you can work out whether you are compatible or not. This categorisation of others by people who are politically and morally clueless in every way is a serious problem and should not be permitted. If you open this kind of service, open to any and all, no discrimination should be permitted by law based on race, religion, creed etc etc or on one’s personal beliefs however repellent they may be to you or to the proprietors of these “social” media platforms.

The laws should be just like the laws that apply to renting out your house.

This entry was posted in Freedom of speech. Bookmark the permalink.

83 Responses to It must be made illegal on “social media” to deny service to people who say things that are not illegal to say

  1. stackja

    The laws should be just like the laws that apply to renting out your house.

    You cannot discriminate today.

  2. 2dogs

    Private firms can do what they like, but we should remind companies that engage is such censorship that they are subject to the Trade Practices Act.

    Competitors should be established, and where, as for example, a competitor to Twitter like Gab.ai gets delisted by Apple & Google, the secondary boycott provisions must be activated.

  3. Motelier

    Weeellllll.

    There is a reason I am not on Facebook.

    Yes, I am on twitter, however it will be less of a loss to me than it is to advertisers that wish to reach me.

    Companies advertising on social media should just let that sink in.

  4. Louis Hissink

    If private companies act in particular ways, they do so in response to laws and regulations.

    AKA Fascism.

    It’s the unaware Fascists who are the problem.

  5. 2dogs

    they do so in response to laws and regulations

    No, just in response to loud SJW screeching. No actual laws drove Google to behave the way it did. Damore pointed out Google was actually acting illegally in some cases.

  6. Anne

    It must be made illegal on “social media” to deny service to people who say things that are not illegal to say.

    Simple solution to this problem is to make it illegal.

    “Hate Speech” henceforth shall be punishable by law and judged by the Anti-Pope Jorge Bergobledigoop and/or, if he’s busy having infant blood transfusions or checking small boys for pubic lice, representatives from the United Nations, the TLC, the CFR, the Knights of Malta or Monsanto.

  7. People may not remember furore created over the net neutrality issue a few years ago; however, the very same companies clamouring about these ‘dangerous’ changes to internet freedom are now doing exactly what they were protesting about back then.

  8. Kates arguing for state interventionism to abrogate private property rights, of course he does. I would say I was surprised, but I am not really. Kates will argue any point of view, even if it directly contradicts his stated ideology, to defend his tribe. That is what ethno-nationalism does, it rots your brain until you start denying your previous belief system if it conflicts with your in group. Sad but not uncommon these days.

  9. Arky

    These are leftist companies right?
    Give ’em a good dose of leftism and nationalise the fuckers with no compensation.
    After all, that’s what they advocate with their support of Antifa.

  10. Pedro the Ignorant

    One of my Facebook friends was banned last night for putting up a rainbow flag with a large red “NO” superimposed.

    FB: “Access Denied”.

    The Ministry of Truth has spoken.

  11. JC

    It’s a little more complicated than that Monster. Denial of service from utility-like organizations has been illegal and continues to be. A telephone carrier cannot deny service to a KKK member like the deceased Robert Bird, for instance. Bus companies cannot demand people with darker skin sit at the back of the bus.

  12. jupes

    That is what ethno-nationalism does

    Ethno-nationalism! There’s a new one.

    Is that like the Aboriginal ‘nations’ wanting special privileges? If so I agree that it is a bad thing.

    I have seen fuck all evidence that Kates is one though m0nty. Have you?

  13. Myrddin Seren

    One of my Facebook friends was banned last night for putting up a rainbow flag with a large red “NO” superimposed.

    FB: “Access Denied”.

    The Ministry of Truth has spoken.

    Wait until the next time they try booking a flight with Qantas.

    QAN: “Access Denied” and “Flagged as a terrorist risk”

  14. jupes

    Steve, where do you draw the line though?

    Are you cool with Sinc banning people from this blog?

    If so, what is the difference?

  15. Arky

    Jupes, one difference is no one banned here depends on this blog for their income.
    Another is there are many thousands of alternatives to this blog.
    Another is this blog is comparatively tiny.

  16. Arky

    Jupes, one difference is no one banned here depends on this blog for their income.
    Another is there are many thousands of alternatives to this blog.
    Another is this blog

  17. RobK

    I’m not much familiar with facebook, is there not a difference with it compared to a telephone company in that the phone conversations are deemed private by law where as facebook has more public access in part and a massive user agreement between the parties……just saying.

  18. jupes

    Jupes, one difference is no one banned here depends on this blog for their income.
    Another is there are many thousands of alternatives to this blog.
    Another is this blog

    Thanks Arky that helps.

    I like the idea that Sinc can ban people from the blog because it’s his blog. I’m just trying to clarify in my own mind at what point that owners of sites shouldn’t be able to ban people. Steve suggests “social media” platforms is the line, but what exactly is that? Is the Cat social media? Seems pretty social to me.

  19. Steve Kates

    Jupes – This is just a blog of which there are many. If you are disruptive, off you go. But our platform is WordPress and it should become illegal for WoodPress or any other similar service provider to deny service if they didn’t like what we were saying.

  20. Andrew

    FB is presumably a commercial business, worth $billions and providing services on which it makes money.

    Apparently I can be denied commercial services for saying I plan to deny someone else commercial services (to wit, refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, being protected by my s116 constitutional rights. But I CAN’T actually refuse to bake the cake in the first place.

    Would that be a fair reflection of the leftist position?

  21. Kneel

    The best test of discrimination is a simple reversal of roles.
    If banning hard-left responses is “bad”, then so is banning hard-right responses.
    So set up an obviously racist “black group” on facebook. See if it gets banned.
    If not, you have good reason to suspect discrimination based on race.
    If you complain and it still isn’t banned, then there should be legal avenues that you can persue. Simply pointing this out should be enough to cause outrage, but somehow I doubt it would.Only one way to find out…

  22. RobK

    I agree that a provider such as WordPress should not judge content but I’m guessing if the law was breached by some content, the provider should assist the plod in upholding the law. Freelance censorship is not only disturbing but probably counter productive in tracking antisocial behavior.

  23. benaud

    I see them as Common Carriers they have been granted immunity from being held as publishers (so from defamation and copyright) they should be made to either give up the immunity and exercise editorial control and be laible or provide services irrespective of political point of view.

  24. I like the idea that Sinc can ban people from the blog because it’s his blog. I’m just trying to clarify in my own mind at what point that owners of sites shouldn’t be able to ban people. Steve suggests “social media” platforms is the line, but what exactly is that? Is the Cat social media? Seems pretty social to me.

    I’m not on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or any other similar site. I do visit blogs, but I think they are different.

    The thing with the Facebook, Twitter etc is that they are the dominant and ostensibly the only social media sites catering to their particular groups. They are in fact monopolies. As mentioned, potential competitors such as Gab, Rebel Media etc are being increasingly removed from existence.

    Where can anyone find alternative points of view, if access is denied? And where will this censorship end? Breitbart, for example, is one media outlet that doesn’t toe the Leftist line (and has been proven not to be an Alt-Right site), but even they are constantly under fire to be shut down.

    In what other commercial environment are similar monopolies tolerated, especially when they begin to flex their muscles to the disadvantage of competitors?

  25. Bruce

    Farcebook is an enormous personal data mine.

  26. jupes

    Jupes – This is just a blog of which there are many. If you are disruptive, off you go. But our platform is WordPress and it should become illegal for WoodPress or any other similar service provider to deny service if they didn’t like what we were saying.

    Right got it. Thanks Steve.

  27. Jupes – This is just a blog of which there are many. If you are disruptive, off you go. But our platform is WordPress and it should become illegal for WoodPress or any other similar service provider to deny service if they didn’t like what we were saying.

    My blog runs on WordPress, but it’s self-hosted, not WordPress.com. That gives me somewhat greater security.

    But I agree that service providers, no matter who they are and what service they provide, should not be able to discriminate based on personal ideas and ideals of the CEO or whatever, especially if it’s a publicly listed/traded company. If someone is doing something potentially illegal, then it behoves the service provider to report that to the authorities and, if proven to be illegal, then that service provider has a right to stop service provision.

    Ideological views should not be the basis of denial of, or access to, services of the nature that the likes of these monopolies and publicly listed companies provide. If a full shareholder meeting agrees to the views of the board, then fine. How many of these decisions have been endorsed by the shareholders?

    Someone might jump in with an ‘Ah Ha!’, moment citing the refusal of a baker to bake a gay wedding cake based on religious views, but you can always source another baker. You cannot source another Facebook, etc. Nor is the baker a publicly listed company (in most cases), or maybe they should become publicly listed and then enjoy the unique ability to refuse service based on ideals.

  28. JC

    Here’s the issue that I think is pertinent to this discussion. Steve’s point is the direct opposite of what the left wants to do. The left wants to curtail free and open speech that offends them or opposes their positions. On the other hand we have the first amendment which has been protected continuously throughout the history of the US when there have been legal attacks through the Supreme Court. SCOTUS has actually expanded 1st amendment rights.

    If Rosa Parks’ right was protected in not having to give up a seat for a white person. Why is someone’s opinion and views scrubbed off the internet by Google, Facebook and the cloud providers because the management disagree with those views?

  29. stackja

    Liberty Quote
    There is no general case for indiscriminate “trust-busting” or for the prosecution of everything that qualifies as a restraint of trade. Rational as distinguished from vindictive regulation by public authority turns out to be an extremely delicate problem which not every government agency, particularly when in full cry against big business, can be trusted to solve.

    — Joseph Schumpeter

  30. Haidee

    “Wait until the next time they try booking a flight with QANTAS”
    Who knows what’s ahead
    That individual did say that we won’t be able to fly, won’t be able to bank, et cetera, if we’re thinking of boycotting. Influential people letting us know.

  31. alexnoaholdmate

    That is what ethno-nationalism does, it rots your brain until you start denying your previous belief system if it conflicts with your in group.

    Wow.

    Uhh… you can disagree with Kates all you like – I do, on this point – but I’m not sure how arguing a carriage service should be subject to the same non-discrimination rules as every other industry is “ethno-nationalism.”

    Did you pick up a few extra words when you were visiting the Antifa forum this morning, Monst?

  32. 2dogs

    Can anyone explain why Facebook would do this?

  33. alexnoaholdmate

    One of my Facebook friends was banned last night for putting up a rainbow flag with a large red “NO” superimposed.

    FB: “Access Denied”.

    In other words, your friend was denied service simply for arguing in favour of what is currently the law.

    If I were you, I’d be straight on to Timmy at the Human Rights Commission.

    And when he denies your complaint has any validity – and he will – then I’d take it to the media.

  34. Up The Workers!

    Maybe, instead of “Google”, it should be called: “Goebbel”?

    Both Socialists; both totalitarian; both devoted to dissemination of propaganda and stomping on any alternative views.

  35. True Aussie

    Kates will argue any point of view, even if it directly contradicts his stated ideology, to defend his tribe.

    I didn’t know Kates was J ewish. I also don’t care monty. Ezra Levant and his media outlet deserve fair treatment, regardless of what anti semites like you, monty, think

  36. alexnoaholdmate

    I didn’t know Kates was J ewish. I also don’t care monty. Ezra Levant and his media outlet deserve fair treatment, regardless of what anti semites like you, monty, think

    Says the bigot who tried to blame all Jews for Communism on another thread.

  37. egg_

    Teh Left – “Freedom of Opinion” – so long as it agrees with theirs.

  38. Roger W

    “The best test of discrimination is a simple reversal of roles.
    If banning hard-left responses is “bad”, then so is banning hard-right responses.
    So set up an obviously racist “black group” on facebook. See if it gets banned.
    If not, you have good reason to suspect discrimination based on race.
    If you complain and it still isn’t banned, then there should be legal avenues that you can persue. Simply pointing this out should be enough to cause outrage, but somehow I doubt it would.Only one way to find out…”
    Kneel, people have tried this. Here is just one link but you can find endless examples. The lawyer’s response is also interesting. https://answers.justia.com/question/2017/08/16/can-facebook-allow-racism-from-one-side-306443
    (Sorry if you need to paste and copy the link, not very tech savvy, to say the least – one reason I’m not on Facebook!!

  39. Steve Kates

    Monty: Kates will argue any point of view, even if it directly contradicts his stated ideology, to defend his tribe.
    .
    True Aussie: I didn’t know Kates was J ewish. I also don’t care monty. Ezra Levant and his media outlet deserve fair treatment, regardless of what anti semites like you, monty, think

    You know, it didn’t even occur to me that that was what Monty was saying. But if it is, then he is truly vile.

  40. Nerblnob

    What is an “attack”

    ?

    Disagreeing with someone.

    That’s the wretched state of formerly free societies in the 21st century.

  41. Driftforge

    I suspect rather than address this via dictat, the next attempt to resolve this will be through the development of alt-tech counterparts to the existing big names. If that fails, you may see Trump use the ban hammer; We’ll see.

    But there are a large number of people scrambling (and some who were ahead of the game) to build an entire alt-tech stack from registrar on down.

    Gonna be civil war over there at some point, so folks all separating from their enemies now in order to be more robust then.

  42. Nerblnob

    I’d say your Monty meant political tribe. He doesn’t strike me as that type.

  43. True Aussie

    I’d say your Monty meant political tribe.

    Nope. Monty was going on about ethno-nationalism. Israel is the only ethno-nationalist state in the world. Very anti semitic stuff. Monty should be ashamed.

  44. Sinclair Davidson

    To be clear – m0nty was referring to Steve’s political tribe not ethno-religious tribe.

    On the broader question – I’m just wondering who we should trust to pass this law?

  45. Fulcrum

    Its the progressive view of democracy which will return us to “The Dark Ages”.

    I keep wondering what dark secrets are being used to drive media personalities to the irrational behaviour that appears as as continuous loop 24/7

  46. alexnoaholdmate

    Monty’s not the type.

  47. Warty

    This is very much all part of the ‘deep state’ that Donald Trump spoke of, and bothers the hell out of me. Being an ordinary bloke in the street (not your street of course, otherwise you’d ring 000 to report a stalker, but the metaphorical street) and I was wondering what the flamingo one could do to bypass google. Like Bill Leak (even though I’m not like Bill Leak) I don’t use Facebook or twitter, so I’m safe with that regard, but I simply have an aversion to the totalitarian state, strange though that may seem. What can one do to fight back against totalitarians if you don’t have mega millions yourself?

  48. Andrew

    In other words, your friend was denied service simply for arguing in favour of what is currently the law.

    I’ve put it to Chief Poof Timmy that religious persecution will follow – particularly now that Brandis666 has belled the cat and admitted that a Yes vote will simply see the parliament DEBATE what form of protections to enact. (Being of course green-left dominant in the Sen8.)

    His glib response was s116. He thinks Mabo and the vibe will protect people exercising their rights. We’ll see how well that goes.

  49. Tel

    It must be made illegal on “social media” to deny service to people who say things that are not illegal to say

    I totally disagree with that, it would imply common carrier status.

    However, each social media platform should be compelled to provide an acceptable use policy, and then if they don’t do what they say, it should be regarded as fraud.

    I have no problem with Leftyville announcing themselves as Leftyville and then maintaining a club of true believers; exactly like the way places like Stormfront are unabashed in their position. If you aren’t interested in either of those, then don’t join. Simple! At least you should know upfront what you are joining.

    The only thing government needs to do is enforce contracts… if you say it’s what you do, then do what you say.

  50. John D

    The most effective ban possible is the act of taking your business elsewhere.
    Of course the majority of the sheeple can’t seem to live without Facebook and Twitter so they are already brain-dead and I am wasting my time.
    In very recent events all the big boys – Google,Facebook,Twitter – have rolled over when sufficient numbers reacted to their social engineering attempts and affected their bottom line.
    So the answer is out there without the likes of Kates replacing SJW fascism with his own version.
    You get the government you deserve.
    You get the society you deserve.
    Get off your butt and join the ACA and actually start engineering your future.
    Or suck it up.
    You do have a choice – you could have a voice.

  51. notaluvvie

    I seem to remember the railways and oil companies of late 19th and early 20th century US being public, ie listed on stock exchanges, companies. Yet it wasn’t beyond the power of government to break them up. I am also reminded of the Ma Bell break-up of the 1980’s (1983 into ’84 I believe). Google (and its subsidiary YouTube), Twitter and all those public owned companies are exactly the same and can be handled in exactly the same way, ie broken up due to monopoly status and their threats to competition or rather lack thereof.

    And for those who say “private” companies when they mean “public”, a private company is one held by its owners and does not issue ordinary retail stock. Government owned monoliths, eg NBN (or let’s reinvent the PMG) are government corporations and should also be abolished. Perhaps we could have one airline and just have businesses, tightly controlled of course, just selling tickets. Gee, reminds one of the great service and capabilities of Aeroflot and its staff.

  52. Gorky

    I know Facebook is used by organisations to harass people in a malicious way. Unless you are going to police that, then some basic censorship is all that should be done.

  53. Bruce

    Farcebook is an enormous personal-data mine.

    Avoid it like the plague.

  54. To be clear – m0nty was referring to Steve’s political tribe not ethno-religious tribe.

    Correct.

    I agree that telephone companies shouldn’t be allowed to deny service based on political beliefs. Access to telephony is a matter of life or death in some circumstances. But Facebook is not a carriage service. There are other options. WordPress is also not a carriage service. They should not be forced to abrogate their private property rights by the state to host content which could harm their business. That Kates would agitate like this against fundamental capitalist theory is a disgrace for someone who professes to support freedom of the market.

  55. Whalehunt Fun

    I must be delusional. It seems as if I just read something from Monty with which I agree.

  56. candy

    I agree that telephone companies shouldn’t be allowed to deny service based on political beliefs. Access to telephony is a matter of life or death in some circumstances.

    That’s true. But it’s not the biggest leap for a telephone company in today’s/future of SSM etc to deny service.
    The Qantas CEO chappie has done it to Margaret Court and some poor old bloke a bit disordered mentally.

    For some reason easy going Australians have become habituated to bullying and abuse of Christianity.

  57. JC

    Yet it wasn’t beyond the power of government to break them up. I am also reminded of the Ma Bell break-up of the 1980’s (1983 into ’84 I believe).

    Breaking up Ma Bell was a financial fraud of the 20 century. Judicial activism at its worst.

  58. The Qantas CEO chappie has done it to Margaret Court and some poor old bloke a bit disordered mentally.

    candy, it was Court who boycotted Qantas, not the other way round.

    For some reason easy going Australians have become habituated to bullying and abuse of Christianity.

    Rubbish. You are better than than, candy.

  59. Steve Kates

    OK, Monty. You say discussing “ethno-nationalist tribes” is about my “political” tribe whatever that may be. So we will leave it there. But if it what you meant is what True Aussie thought you meant, then your politics and attitudes are vile, well beyond your normal level of pig ignorant.

  60. No Steve, I definitely meant political tribe. I have no idea about what your religion is.

  61. Refusing net hosting service to someone coz they disagree with your politics – Acceptable.
    Refusing cake baking service to someone coz they disagree with your politics – You get a judicial penalty.

  62. Facebook and Twitter have developed tools to allow users to report hate speech and harassment. PayPal has blocked hate groups from using its financial services, and the ride-hailing services Uber and Lyft have urged drivers to report unacceptable customers.

    Coz nobody ever sounds off in a taxi Uber or Lyft, on the way home, when they’re in their cups.

    Was until this moment a fence sitter. I’m now firmly anti-Uber.

    Taxi!

  63. stackja

    Liberty Quote
    The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who, in a time of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.

    — Dante

  64. Snoopy

    Was until this moment a fence sitter. I’m now firmly anti-Uber.

    You can continue to use Uber. Just say to the driver something like. “Trump’s a dangerous fascist isn’t he?”.

    If the driver agrees enthusiastically, rank him the lowest (one star). If he appears even slightly reticent to offer an opinion, give him 5 stars.

  65. I agree with Kates at least to this extent. Youtube can’t invite content creators like Rebel Media, people that invest money, time and labor, and then without explanation or possible appeal, remove them from said platform.

  66. You can continue to use Uber. Just say to the driver something like. “Trump’s a dangerous fascist isn’t he?”.
    If the driver agrees enthusiastically, rank him the lowest (one star). If he appears even slightly reticent to offer an opinion, give him 5 stars.

    Mmm… the cabbie nodding & agreeing with a barking mad opinion of a passenger is nothing remarkable.

    As you say, it would have to be enthusiastic agreement.
    A neat trick would be to have a senior moment: “Trump’s the greatest bloke ever……… omg, what did I just say…… I mean, the greatest asshole ever!”
    …. and see how your driver reacts in the first couple of seconds before the correction.

  67. Gorky

    Anti- free speech is arbitrary punishments. Fair enough if views broke established guidelines that apply to all but deciding behaviour is bullying based on the persons politics is totalitarian BS. It will generate more hate than a silly comment.

  68. Louis Hissink

    Farcebook is an enormous personal-data mine. Avoid it like the plague.

    Unfortunately all tiers of our government use FB for announcements etc, so, like it or not, one has to use it. I simply don’t “check in”.

    Use it as a news feed, and restrict comments to the banal if one has to type a comment. And don’t use messenger at all – who needs someone you don’t know from the other side of the planet striking up a conversation.

    Apart from that, posting something that will cause blowback from the usual suspects is simply silly. It’s like popping your head over the parapet, delivering an insult, and complaining that the eggs and crap hurled at you stinks. FB and Twitter are statist and hence lefty fora so posting anything that will cause them cognitive dissonance is to be avoided. If you decide to wave the LGBT etc flag and scream NO, then that’s tantamount to insulting the colours, a courageous act if there’s a lumbering special ops sergeant holding the colours.

    To avoid being banned on FB etc, learn to be diplomatic, the ability to send someone to hell and having them looking forward to it.

  69. old bloke

    It must be made illegal on “social media” to deny service to people who say things that are not illegal to say

    I can’t agree with you Steve, businesses should be free to offer or refuse services to whomever and for whatsoever reason they chose.

    and the ride-hailing services Uber and Lyft have urged drivers to report unacceptable customers.

    That’s fair enough, why shouldn’t the drivers be free to report a customer for whatever reason? If a customer was rude, offensive, belligerent, didn’t pay for his fare, why wouldn’t he be reported?

    It should also work in reverse, if you don’t like the driver, report him. I have a neighbour who recently used a taxi (not Uber) to take him to the airport. My neighbour was wearing a “Support Israel” T-shirt which the taxi driver, a gentleman of “mid-east appearance”, didn’t like. When he was dropped off at the airport the driver spoke for the first time, he simply said “I know your address”.

  70. Nerblnob

    Had some cracking Uber drivers in South Africa.

    One ranted about how engineering standards has declined after apartheid ended.

    Another about how good severe corporal punishment was for children.

    Both black.

  71. Mark A

    m0nty
    #2480260, posted on August 27, 2017 at 10:39 am
    For some reason easy going Australians have become habituated to bullying and abuse of Christianity.

    Rubbish. You are better than than, candy.

    Stupidest idiotic saying there is. She said it, she meant it therefore she is what she is, neither better nor worse.

    Are you trying to counsel her?
    Have doughnut instead, you know you want to.

  72. Old bloke, do you think that platforms like Youtube can invite and allow content creators to produce thousands of hours of video and acquire hundreds of thousands of subscribers, but then without explanation or appeal, remove them from that platform? Or to demonetize videos at a whim again without consultation or appeal?

  73. Mother Lode

    The ultra-conservative online Canadian media outlet The Rebel…

    Ultra-conservative?

    These people are such wilting flowers, all bunched and sweating together in their own greenhouse, that the slighttest draft of air from the outside imperils them.

    “Did you hear that? Some people think their culture is as worthy of protection as others like Islam! What kind of monsters…”

  74. hzhousewife

    Does anyone here use an email service that is NOT gmail or yahoo or bigpond? Advantages, disadvantages ?

  75. Rococo Liberal

    Some intersting things have happened in the last 50 years. Whereas in the past you could expect large corporates to be controlled by people with Conservative views, these days there seem to be a lot of people with left-wing ideals in charge at big companies. We used to expect such people to grow up when they acquired capital. But America is not the land of the grown up.

  76. hzhousewife

    We here in Australia simply copy-cat, for example Mr Forrest and his anti-slavery ideals – it is “trendy” among philanthropists currently. This too will pass, may take a while.

  77. Kneel

    “…what the flamingo one could do to bypass google.”

    duckduckgo

  78. tgs

    Hilarious for True Aussie to be claiming someone else is anti-Semitic when he has used the triple parentheses on comments on this website.

    Monty may be many things but he isn’t an anti-Semite like you are you hypocritical asshole.

  79. Pingback: This should be absolutely illegal | Catallaxy Files

Comments are closed.