Kudos to him and Shopify for this. Too many companies seem to put their reputation above doing what's right, leading to a situation where pressure from politicial opponents leads to controversial sites being booted off popular platforms.
So congrats to Shopify for this. Congrats for telling people that no, you're not going to boot out customers because their work offends people. You may actually be the one 'software as a service' provider I could actually trust.
They still have a clause in their terms of service that says they can remove anything that is "offensive", "defamatory", "obscene or otherwise objectionable", so you can't really trust that they'll continue this behavior.
Okay I think it needs to be stressed yet again. The freedom to speak isn't the same as the privilege to be heard. You can speak to the air but no one owes you the time to listen. Equally, everyone is free to conduct business but no one is owed customers to make that business profitable. This is something so many faux-centrists miss because in their mind the right to not associate is seen as a moral ill rather than a moral good. They think that all social actions must operate like that of an economy when in practice it's an economy that's shaped by the social actions. To allow groups like Breitbart who knowingly peddle in lies (ex. claims that global warming isn't real and/or significant or that transgender people are disordered/dangerous) is to endorse those lies whether or not you agree with them. There's no gray area when one gives an audience to blatant lies which are being used to shape laws (see FADA). Either you take a stand and oppose the lies and ostracize those who peddle in them or endorse those lies and all their implications. A or not A as Ayn Rand put it.
It's a flawed ideal because no one is owed a hearing from you, me, or anyone else and because it asserts all points of view or beliefs have equal value. The latter being the most troubling implication of free speech absolutism is why I don't bother to listen to or even take stock in the views of Creationists, New Agers, or "alternative medicine" crackpots. Their ideas are worthless until they can be tested by science or show some material results beyond wishful thinking. It's high time people actually take that position rather than cower behind the "there's truth in all things" nonsense.
Also, private parties are not legally obligated to carry any/all services/goods/speech just because you and others want it to be the case. There's no such basis of a Fairness Doctrine for the economy (even when taking into account the equal protection clause's interpretation or that of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's protected classes). The moment you try to create convoluted arguments that somehow one must hear, offer up a platform to, anyone without qualification or just compensation then you're supporting free speech but rather supporting forced association beyond what even the most liberal of legal theorists would entertain. Perhaps it's time to reign in this free speech absolutism and admit not everyone has to listen?
Free speech (in the "absolutist" sense you're describing) doesn't necessarily assert that all points of view are equal or equally valid, only that all points of view should be equally expressible. To me, there is nothing in that ideal which insists that lies need to be accepted, or can't be fought against, or disproved.
You seem to be arguing that free speech encompasses a greater breadth of opinion than certain ideologies care to admit, rather than actually discrediting it as an ideal. You're accusing others of false equivalence, by way of false dichotomy.
You also seem to be assuming that anyone who believes in "absolute free speech" does so to defend right-wing, anti science views, which if so is simply not accurate.
>...only that all points of view should be equally expressible.
Again, so long as private parties are not morally nor legally obligated to be a platform for all people that visit or use their site there can be no argument that they should act as one outside of their self-interests (or that of their shareholders).
>To me, there is nothing in that ideal which insists that lies need to be accepted, or can't be fought against, or disproved.
Then how would it work when Family Research Council sells their t-shirts and keychains or whatever through Shopify? How would they feel about such an organization which opposes LGBT rights using their service? I'm sure it would give some discussion among their employees. See the problem? At some point, you gotta admit that all economic actions are political ones (same with social actions).
>You're accusing others of false equivalence, by way of false dichotomy.
Far from it, I'm pointing out that free speech as so many fellow programmers/devs conceive of it as this perfect ideal to reach for rather than a legal right that we enjoy. And part of that comes from the faulty notion that there's a marketplace of ideas when ideas don't operate on the basis of a marketplace. So when you have that idea that ideas should be treated as goods in a marketplace your only option is to take the plunge and support free speech in all spheres of life, especially those which are private and personal (which gets dicey IMO).
>You also seem to be assuming that anyone who believes in "absolute free speech" does so to defend right-wing, anti science views, which if so is simply not accurate.
It's not that they defend such ideas but that they allow such ideas to infect and distort the public discourse by not opposing their dissemination in the private sphere. If you own a site and genuinely believe that global warming is a man-made disaster then it makes no sense to give denialists access to your platforms. At some point you have to take a stand for your beliefs beyond the ballot box or your campaign donations. At some point you have to push back.
But here's the fundamental flaw. No one, and I mean no one on the left seems to have shit to say when it's their websites peddling the lies (and boy oh boy are they everywhere). If the shoe was on the other foot, I suspect your opinion would change dramatically.
>But here's the fundamental flaw. No one, and I mean no one on the left seems to have shit to say when it's their websites peddling the lies (and boy oh boy are they everywhere).
You make a bad assumption that because I'm pointing out the lies that Breitbart and others peddle in that some how I have no words for the likes of Mother Nature News or other left crank sites. Trust me, I have more than I would want to list on here but the biggest one is the anti-vaccine quackery that I see floated around by a certain brand of liberal in the US.
>If the shoe was on the other foot, I suspect your opinion would change dramatically.
Your suspicion is baseless considering I filter out DailyKos, Salon, and other left wing sites from my news feed along with Breitbart and company on the right. I suggest you actually respond to my points or admit you have no argument.
It's very amusing to see people down vote my comment because what this demonstrates that there's too many free speech absolutists on HN that can't deal with the real possibility that some speech is utterly worthless. The fact they down vote at all proves that this is the default view and not the false narrative that somehow we should offer up our minds or material goods to an opposing point of view. There's never been a gray area in this regard despite what Shopify's staff believes (and which is proven here). There's some views or ideas that are completely false and therefore not worth discussing beyond an academic exercise. Now, maybe if those down voters would have the courage to admit as much then maybe we can move on as how best to deal with such things beyond sitting on our hands and pretend that "more speech" actually changes society for the better/worse (hint: it doesn't, go look at any breakdown of historical movements to see why).
> free speech absolutists on HN that can't deal with the real possibility that some speech is utterly worthless
I think lots of speech is worthless but just because I think that doesn't mean it needs to be censored. If I didn't find any real value in your post I'd still defend your right to post it.
Personally, I have a very real problem with online communities bullying people into using their power to further political goals and so I applaud Shopify's response.
>I think lots of speech is worthless but just because I think that doesn't mean it needs to be censored.
But the fact that a mod on a site or a site owner deciding not to let you use their site as a platform doesn't diminish your ability to speak. The Internet by design gets around this problem. Don't expect the every site to act as a mirror to share all beliefs. Let site owners do what they will (and I respect the people at Shopify to do their own decisions even though I think it does make them complicit with bigots).
>If I didn't find any real value in your post I'd still defend your right to post it.
That's the problem, we're not owed a right to post anywhere but on our sites. Anywhere else that we're not paying for access or are an owner (jointly or wholly) is a privilege. We're guests here and anywhere else like that.
>Personally, I have a very real problem with online communities bullying people into using their power to further political goals and so I applaud Shopify's response.
And I think their choice is a naive one because it assumes all economic actions are value free. Every choice they make at this point is a political and moral act. To state otherwise is to lie to one's self. It's better to stand by a set of values that they think are compatible with their venture than to pretend they have no values.
Patently untrue (by definition) and also an incredibly dangerous thing to say when non-governmental agencies control such a huge portion of information dissemination.
16 comments
[ 7.8 ms ] story [ 63.1 ms ] threadSo congrats to Shopify for this. Congrats for telling people that no, you're not going to boot out customers because their work offends people. You may actually be the one 'software as a service' provider I could actually trust.
http://sealedabstract.com/rants/re-xkcd-1357-free-speech/
Also, private parties are not legally obligated to carry any/all services/goods/speech just because you and others want it to be the case. There's no such basis of a Fairness Doctrine for the economy (even when taking into account the equal protection clause's interpretation or that of the Civil Rights Act of 1964's protected classes). The moment you try to create convoluted arguments that somehow one must hear, offer up a platform to, anyone without qualification or just compensation then you're supporting free speech but rather supporting forced association beyond what even the most liberal of legal theorists would entertain. Perhaps it's time to reign in this free speech absolutism and admit not everyone has to listen?
You seem to be arguing that free speech encompasses a greater breadth of opinion than certain ideologies care to admit, rather than actually discrediting it as an ideal. You're accusing others of false equivalence, by way of false dichotomy.
You also seem to be assuming that anyone who believes in "absolute free speech" does so to defend right-wing, anti science views, which if so is simply not accurate.
Again, so long as private parties are not morally nor legally obligated to be a platform for all people that visit or use their site there can be no argument that they should act as one outside of their self-interests (or that of their shareholders).
>To me, there is nothing in that ideal which insists that lies need to be accepted, or can't be fought against, or disproved.
Then how would it work when Family Research Council sells their t-shirts and keychains or whatever through Shopify? How would they feel about such an organization which opposes LGBT rights using their service? I'm sure it would give some discussion among their employees. See the problem? At some point, you gotta admit that all economic actions are political ones (same with social actions).
>You're accusing others of false equivalence, by way of false dichotomy.
Far from it, I'm pointing out that free speech as so many fellow programmers/devs conceive of it as this perfect ideal to reach for rather than a legal right that we enjoy. And part of that comes from the faulty notion that there's a marketplace of ideas when ideas don't operate on the basis of a marketplace. So when you have that idea that ideas should be treated as goods in a marketplace your only option is to take the plunge and support free speech in all spheres of life, especially those which are private and personal (which gets dicey IMO).
>You also seem to be assuming that anyone who believes in "absolute free speech" does so to defend right-wing, anti science views, which if so is simply not accurate.
It's not that they defend such ideas but that they allow such ideas to infect and distort the public discourse by not opposing their dissemination in the private sphere. If you own a site and genuinely believe that global warming is a man-made disaster then it makes no sense to give denialists access to your platforms. At some point you have to take a stand for your beliefs beyond the ballot box or your campaign donations. At some point you have to push back.
You make a bad assumption that because I'm pointing out the lies that Breitbart and others peddle in that some how I have no words for the likes of Mother Nature News or other left crank sites. Trust me, I have more than I would want to list on here but the biggest one is the anti-vaccine quackery that I see floated around by a certain brand of liberal in the US.
>If the shoe was on the other foot, I suspect your opinion would change dramatically.
Your suspicion is baseless considering I filter out DailyKos, Salon, and other left wing sites from my news feed along with Breitbart and company on the right. I suggest you actually respond to my points or admit you have no argument.
I think lots of speech is worthless but just because I think that doesn't mean it needs to be censored. If I didn't find any real value in your post I'd still defend your right to post it.
Personally, I have a very real problem with online communities bullying people into using their power to further political goals and so I applaud Shopify's response.
But the fact that a mod on a site or a site owner deciding not to let you use their site as a platform doesn't diminish your ability to speak. The Internet by design gets around this problem. Don't expect the every site to act as a mirror to share all beliefs. Let site owners do what they will (and I respect the people at Shopify to do their own decisions even though I think it does make them complicit with bigots).
>If I didn't find any real value in your post I'd still defend your right to post it.
That's the problem, we're not owed a right to post anywhere but on our sites. Anywhere else that we're not paying for access or are an owner (jointly or wholly) is a privilege. We're guests here and anywhere else like that.
>Personally, I have a very real problem with online communities bullying people into using their power to further political goals and so I applaud Shopify's response.
And I think their choice is a naive one because it assumes all economic actions are value free. Every choice they make at this point is a political and moral act. To state otherwise is to lie to one's self. It's better to stand by a set of values that they think are compatible with their venture than to pretend they have no values.