←back to thread

370 points sillypuddy | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
jacques_chester ◴[] No.16407575[source]
The thing is, if you like private property and private contract, this is what can happen to you. If you think any company is within its rights to police speech, then you agree that it's fine for Google to exclude conservative or libertarian speech.

Nobody owes you space for your views. Your place, your rules. Their place, their rules. That's the deal.

replies(2): >>16407630 #>>16408054 #
Sniffnoy ◴[] No.16407630[source]
I think you're drawing a false binary choice here. There is such a thing as "thick libertarianism", for instance. There's nothing inconsistent with the view that sure one is within one's rights to do such a thing but that it is still bad, and that one might, to the extent that one can within one's own rights, take measures to discourage such a thing rather than just accepting it as "Well it's within their rights so it must be OK".

Edit: Or, to put it another way, if one wants to take the philosophy of enforcing norms primarily through private action, let us not forget that that applies not just to the company that owns the building, but also to everyone that company might deal with! And complaining doesn't seem like a bad start.

replies(1): >>16408543 #
1. jacques_chester ◴[] No.16408543[source]
> There's nothing inconsistent with the view that sure one is within one's rights to do such a thing but that it is still bad, and that one might, to the extent that one can within one's own rights, take measures to discourage such a thing rather than just accepting it as "Well it's within their rights so it must be OK".

Sure, but ultimately, if the other party to the discussion refuses to agree, you need a decision rule.

If your views are largely about that decision rule then you look silly for not accepting it.