[16012022]

It’s a private company, it absolutely does not need to be neutral. They can choose any side they want. If you don’t like it, don’t use their platform. Gosh, when did the notion of private firms got so mixed up with so-called political neutrality? Are people this naïve?

[chr1]

When you have several groups of people who distrust and dislike each other, and you start using your business as a means to support the fight of one group against the other, you only increase the enmity between the groups and harm all businesses by starting a process that forces everyone to choose which group to support.

It does not matter whether the reason for initial distrust is religion, ethnicity, race, sexual orientation or political beliefs. You should not start such "economic war" unless your goal is complete elimination of the other group, which, i think, is a rather stupid goal to have.

[edmundsauto]

You’re going to be really upset then to think about the business organizations that receive tax breaks in order to influence politics. Many non-profits exist only for this purpose.

The only reason abortion is a political issue, for example, is because of the outsized influence that tax exempt organizations have.

[chr1]

Are you implying that existence of these tax-exempt organizations and politicization of issues is a good thing?

I don't see anything positive in tax breaks and tax code complexity in general as it is a method to obfuscate spendings and evade taxes, which creates all kinds of unintended consequences.

[edmundsauto]

No, I am not implying that. Just noting its systemic and may as well be an intended feature of the system. At the very least, it's an intended consequence.

I can see positives in having the flexibility to tax things to discourage them, or to encourage behaviors. That's one of the best tools the government has to influence the public's behavior! (EG cigarette taxes). No assessment of the net-net benefit, merely pointing out the complexity of taxes does enable some good things as well.

[8note]

This is not to say that businesses should not do this, only that they have to position themselves to profit from this change in the market.

Selling to both sides can be a profitable venture, which encourages neutrality, but so is locking in customers by something other than the quality or price of your product

[chr1]

I am saying that if we condemn such behavior in all cases (even when neutrality is violated in our favour) we'll reduce the situations when that second strategy becomes profitable, and that will benefit everyone. We don't even need a very large percentage of people for this, even a relatively small group that always supports neutrality will be enough to keep the market neutral.

[Mikeb85]

> It’s a private company, it absolutely does not need to be neutral.

Then state that they're not neutral on the TOS and don't accept funds.

They accepted funds and then tried to straight up steal them.

[seanw444]

Yeah I'm flabbergasted that any company feels so comfortable and relaxed with stealing 9 million dollars in donations.

[Mikeb85]

It's because Canadian politicians suggested they should... Thankfully there's enough people in the US who are rightly disgusted by it and GoFundMe is a US company.

[gruez]

>It’s a private company, it absolutely does not need to be neutral

You're talking past each other. OP said should, you're talking about "needs".

[16012022]

The point stands. No private company should be neutral.

[krapp]

The point doesn't stand for much, it's just your personal opinion.

[16012022]

Well, I commented it. Ofc it is my opinion, who else would it be?

It also happens to be how reality works. Private organizations have literally always chosen sides. It’s how the world works, and I’m sorry it doesn’t fit your likes. Nothing you can do about it mate.

[gruez]

>Well, I commented it. Ofc it is my opinion, who else would it be?

Your "point" doesn't stand for much if it's just your opinion and you refuse to justify the reason for it.

>It also happens to be how reality works. Private organizations have literally always chosen sides. It’s how the world works, and I’m sorry it doesn’t fit your likes. Nothing you can do about it mate.

The state can always send Men With Guns to quell dissenting speech. Should we also proclaim that the government "absolutely does not need" to guarantee freedom of speech? Corporations can ultimately coerce you into accepting terms that overwhelmingly favor them, by offering services under "take it or leave it" terms. Should we say that consumers "absolutely does not need" to be afforded consumer protection rights?

[mc32]

One can’t, for example, solicit donations for cancer research and then instead take those donations and fund swimming pools for dolphins or whatever… even if you’re a private company.

[mistercheph]

>Gosh, when did the notion of private firms got so mixed up with so-called political neutrality? Are people this naïve?

When all speech, commerce, and art became transmitted by the permission of a small number of private firms whose combined powers exceed that of any nation-state.

[throwawaysea]

In a free society, businesses shouldn’t be able to suppress or punish customers for their political views. We already require businesses to not just do whatever they want in many ways. That’s what anti discrimination laws do, for example. We just need to make political viewpoint a protected class as well.

Apart from that, we also regulate a lot of private companies to be neutral. Your power utility may be private but can’t deplatform you. Telecom carriers are similar. Social media companies are just common carriers and public utilities that have avoided regulation so far with careful political donations. Payment companies (Visa, MasterCard, Stripe, PayPal, and yes, GoFundMe) are all just basic payment utilities and should also be treated as public utilities in many ways even if they remain private otherwise.

[unethical_ban]

>In a free society, businesses shouldn’t be able to suppress or punish customers for their political views.

>We just need to make political viewpoint a protected class as well.

I have not gasped at the outlandishness of an HN post in some time.

GoFundMe is not a grocer, or a transit provider. It isn't a power company. It is a luxury service in a free market with low capital requirements.

Under no circumstance should arbitrary businesses be required to cater to people of all political persuasions.

Protected classes exist based on attributes of ourselves which are immutable. You can't change being a woman, being old, or being a particular ethnic group. You certainly "choose" your political opinions.

[nitrogen]

> >We just need to make political viewpoint a protected class as well.

> I have not gasped at the outlandishness of an HN post in some time.

How else can a democratic republic preserve the diversity of viewpoints required for such a society to function? This really shouldn't be a controversial idea.

Differences of opinion are not only okay, they are essential!

Should a conservative landlord be able to evict anyone who voted for a progressive? Or deny renting in the first place?

> Protected classes exist based on attributes of ourselves which are immutable. You can't change being a woman,

I can't phrase this any less provocatively... Are you saying that all rights against discrimination end if one has a gender transition because it's no longer immutable? I really don't think immutability is the right line to use to decide who gets rights.

Religious belief is protected, and also mutable. Ask me how I know. Political affiliation needs the same protection.

[unethical_ban]

Should a conservative landlord be able to evict anyone who voted for a progressive? Or deny renting in the first place?

No, but housing is already protected. How can you possibly think GoFundMe and housing/food are the same thing?

I simply struggle to understand why a decent person should have to serve someone who wants to kill minorities, or who wants to end democratic government in this country.

Furthermore, you act like if you don't enact this protection you're defending, no one will serve people of different political opinions. The truth is you're making a mountain out of an anthill. Most places serve people of differing political views. I go to a bar with a "Fuck Greg Abbott" sign at the front of the bar, and they'll happily serve a Conservative as long as they aren't being hateful. I happen to go to a bar owned by a Trumpian, anti-worker, anti-vax conservative (I happen to respect some of the bartenders, and the food is good). I am allowed to eat there despite the lack of your proposed legislation.

P.S.

>How else can a democratic republic preserve the diversity of viewpoints required for such a society to function?

It's functioned for close to 250 years, and the more I read American history, the more I realize that the current tumult and animosity is actually the norm, and the "peace" of the postwar period was the outlier.

[8note]

That's a misunderstanding of what the transition is - the transition is on how the gender is presented, not the underlying gender.

That's not to say immutability is a great method to determine rights. Mind you, I don't think political affiliation needs such protections. Freedom of expression and association already handle interactions with political affiliation. The government guarantees your ability to have a political opinion, but not for other people respect it or to help you promote it. What people do with their business is still part of their view points - the real solution is to decentralize power more, so that even if you get thrown out for your political opinion, you can always work somewhere else that likes your politics

[seanw444]

Yeah, I despise general deplatforming, but "mandating that businesses accept everyone no matter the politics" is just as bad. Not everything needs a law.