[silexia]

Most people on Hacker News are entrepreneurs that run their own private businesses. Social media platforms are not some sort of public utility. Social media platforms are private businesses owned by private individuals who can choose who they want to let in and who they want to kick out just like any restaurant or bar or concert hall. If you dislike who a social media platform allows or does not allow, just use a different one. For example, many Trump supporters use parler... A platform which is known to kick off liberal voices. Or better yet, just set up your own blog on your own host and do whatever you want.

[randlet]

> Most people on Hacker News are entrepreneurs that run their own private businesses.

I don't think that is true at all. There's definitely lots of business owners here (myself included!) but I don't think it's anywhere close to a majority.

[bidirectional]

> Most people on Hacker News are entrepreneurs that run their own private businesses.

Has there been a survey done on this? Because that's not the impression I have at all. Entrepeneurs are obviously over-represented in contrast to the general population, but I doubt they're the majority.

[ezekg]

> Parler... A platform which is known to kick off liberal voices.

What? Parler doesn't seem to censor political content at all. A lack of liberal voice does not mean Parler "kicks them off."

[danhor]

At least their CEO seems to ban "Antifa" supporters: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20200630/23525844821/parle...

[alsetmusic]

I believe you’re recycling your material:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25673152

[jedberg]

> Social media platforms are private businesses owned by private individuals who can choose who they want to let in and who they want to kick out just like any restaurant or bar or concert hall.

I hate to break it to you, but bars and restaurants and concert halls can't kick out anyone they want to. There are rules around access to semi-public places. For example they can't kick someone out just for wearing a MAGA hat, or for being black, or lots of other protected classes.

[lotsofpulp]

I’m aware of race, religion, sex, age, and some other federally protected statuses in the US that a business can’t discriminate against, but what protected class would political affiliation fall under?

[jedberg]

I never said political affiliation was protected. I was just pointing out that the blanket statement "they can kick out anyone they want" is not correct.

[lotsofpulp]

I was referring to your example of being forced to do business with a person wearing a MAGA hat. I am unsure if that falls into a protected class, that is federally protected at least.

[silexia]

Outside of race, gender, religion you can ban people for anything you like from your private place of business.

[ThrowawayR2]

California does consider political affiliation as a protected class for employment purposes: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-employmen...

That's what real liberalism looks like and it's something we need to extend to the federal level.

[joshuamorton]

Note that this is only for employment. A california business must not discriminate in hiring based on political affiliation, but can refuse to serve customers based on political affiliation.

[triceratops]

> they can't kick someone out just for wearing a MAGA hat,

Actually they can. In most jurisdictions that's not a protected class. Nightclubs are well-known for having dress codes with vague guidelines such as "no gang colors". Some fancy restaurants require men to wear jackets or women to wear dresses (this seems politically fraught to me). Some bars don't let you in if you're wearing shorts. And so on.

Generally a protected class is an unchangeable attribute.

[jedberg]

If they have a "no hats" dress code, sure. But if hats are generally allowed, and then they disallow you for your hat, that is illegal.

[joshuamorton]

Yeah this is just completely untrue. A business owner can refuse to serve you for any reason, as long as it isn't a specifically protected reason. Much as a company can fire you for any reason except for the legally protected ones.

[silexia]

Actually, a restaurant can ban you for anything outside of specific protected classes like race, gender, religion. A restaurant can ban you for your political beliefs, who your friends are as long as they are not a protected class, they don't like the breed of dog you have, or anything else. Welcome to a free country.

[triceratops]

> But if hats are generally allowed, and then they disallow you for your hat, that is illegal.

Can you cite a relevant case?

You do understand what a protected class is, and why it exists, right?

[nobody9999]

> hate to break it to you, but bars and restaurants and concert halls can't kick out anyone they want to. There are rules around access to semi-public places.

Yep. Like "No shirt, no shoes, no service." Or a more elaborate dress code.

Which is a simple "Terms of Service" for said establishment.

Facebook has a lengthier one[0].

[0] https://www.facebook.com/terms.php

[dylan604]

you can absolutely be denied entry for wearing a MAGA hat. businesses can have dress codes as broad or as specific as they want. must wear shoes and a shirt is pretty low bar. must have a collared shirt, no blue jeans, and no sneakers is also a common dress code. no hats, bandanas, or gang colors or MC colors are all common at bars/clubs/breastaurants.

[MacsHeadroom]

They CAN kick anyone out- just not for any reason. "I don't want you in my business" is the only reason needed.

[jedberg]

Except that isn't true. Sure they can do it, but the person can sue, and if the business can't come up with a reasonable argument to single out that person, they will lose.

[silexia]

This is false. The only lawful grounds for a lawsuit is discrimination against a protected class such as race, gender, religion. Political affiliation is not protected in any way.