[dagmx]

Edit: ignore me, I mistakenly swapped the subjects when reading the comment and misunderstood what they were saying.

———

One is denying service based on a protected class , the other is denying service based on a risk of violence.

How can you consider them equivalent?

[tstrimple]

I'm not saying they are equivalent. I'm saying that all the people screaming that this is tyranny hold very different views on denying other people services based on a protected class. I'm pointing out how silly it is to be okay with a baker refusing gay customers but thinking this is the end of freedom on the internet.

[dagmx]

Edit: never mind I totally misread the initial comment and swapped the two subjects. Ignore me

How is that not holding them as equivalent for the purposes of your argument?

[tstrimple]

The subject of both is a business denying service. The difference is the motivation for denying the service. The folks who complain the most about denying services to bigots and trolls who violate terms of service are completely okay about denying service based off of innate characteristics. I'm not suggesting that if you support one you need to support the other, rather that it's very curious which things these people most vocally support and which things are unacceptable to them. Just like you'll literally never find them defending leftists who get kicked off of these services either.

The larger point is that I don't think these folks are being honest in their defense and that they are defending sites like KF specifically because of the type of people who are being "censored" and not because of fundamental principles. Conservatives get banned from Twitter? "THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS AND CENSORSHIP!" Leftists get banned from Twitter? Not a fucking peep.

[dagmx]

Ah my bad , I totally misread your initial comment because I swapped the two subjects. I’ll go back and edit my comments to mention that.