[throwawayacc2]

> Freedom of speech may protect against government consequences but it doesn't protect against social consequences.

Whenever I see this line, all I can think is this is the exact same reasoning used by racists and homophobes and religious fanatics in the past. Maybe it’s legal for you to be gay now, but we don’t want to welcome you in our community. Maybe it’s legal for black people to buy houses in our neighbourhoods now that doesn’t mean we have to be welcoming. Maybe we can’t kill you know for being an atheist but we’ll banish you from the community.

The reason modern societies are functionally republics ( I am counting constitutional monarchies here as well ) and not direct democracies is to protect against this very phenomenon of changing societal whims.

If you subscribe to this line of thinking, remember one thing. Societal normal are constantly changing. Just as acceptance of homosexuality waxed and waned across time, just as acceptance of foreigners waxed and waned, so to it will in the future. There will come one day, maybe in our life time, maybe far into the future, when all your values will be turned upside down and it will be people like you who will find themselves persecuted. And when that happens, just tell to yourself “Freedom of speech may protect against government consequences but it doesn't protect against social consequences”

[tga_d]

Kiwi farms is not being persecuted for holding an identity, it's being held accountable for actions taken against innocent people. Nobody reasonable thinks, e.g., "persons who engage in abusive behavior" should be a protected class shielded from all repercussions.

[throwawayacc2]

The homosexuals are not being persecuted for holding an identity, they are being held accountable for actions taken against public decency and innocent children. Nobody reasonable thinks, eg, “persons who engage in degenerate behaviour” should be a protected class shielded from all repercussions.

- A homophobe cca 1954

[tga_d]

So, just to be clear here: the position that you're arguing is that there are literally no actions anyone can take that should have social repercussions to them?

[throwawayacc2]

The position I am arguing for is actually something the Cloudflare CEO appears to support as well. At least in writing since he did cave under pressure and instituted censorship.

To quote Matthew Price: “it would have been appropriate as an infrastructure provider for us to wait for legal process”

In a civilised society, we do not have mob rule, we have the rule of law.

The reason we have this stems from the observation that societal norms change throughout time. If we do not have rule of law people will find themselves at the mercy of mobs and petty tyrants. We do not let the mob or “gods anointed” dictate who gets rights and who doesn’t, we offer the same rights to everyone and have a system in place to punish those who step outside the boundaries of the law. This is how a civilised society functions.

If you believe kiwifarms did something wrong, the correct steps are to engage with the system, go through the courts and show they have stepped outside the law. The correct steps are not to censor on the whims of a mob.

Let me ask you a question as well. If a gay teenager or a pregnant teenager gets kicked out of their house for being gay or falling pregnant, would you be as callous as to tell them “you may be protected against government consequences but you’re not protected against social consequences”?

[tga_d]

You (and Price) are painting yourself into such a bizarre rhetorical corner. You honestly believe that nobody should have consequences for any actions outside of the literal legal system? If I let someone use my house to hold parties while I'm away, and I get a few dozen people telling me that this person is engaging in abusive tirades every time they do, that I can't rescind my offer to let them use my house? That they are owed a literal platform at my own expense because... principle? How does that make any sense? How do you have any friends if you can't resolve disputes with them outside of a courtroom?

>If a gay teenager or a pregnant teenager gets kicked out of their house for being gay or falling pregnant, would you be as callous as to tell them “you may be protected against government consequences but you’re not protected against social consequences”?

Of course not, but I also wouldn't go out of my way to do anything to help the people who kicked out that teenager! There is no equivalence here, and it's utterly dystopian that you and anyone else seem to insist otherwise. What, specifically, is the protected class you think Kiwi Farms is a part of?

[throwawayacc2]

The false equivalence is you comparing a business relationship to an interpersonal relationship between two people in real life.

Do you believe stores should be allowed to ban black people from shopping there? Do you believe pharmacies should be allowed to deny medication to jewish people? Perhaps you believe bakeries should not have to sell cakes to gay people?

Are these groups not “owed a literal service at their own expense because... principles”?

To me it seems you’re the one painting yourself a bizarre rhetorical corner. You can’t have it both ways. If we agreed as a society businesses should not discriminate, then they should not discriminate.

So to answer the question you should asked, yes, I honestly believe that nobody should have consequences for any actions outside of the literal legal system when dealing with a business. Business relationships are not the same as interpersonal relationships.

And to answer this one too:

> What, specifically, is the protected class you think Kiwi Farms is a part of?

People who think differently from you.

[prvit]

Yeah, but the Cloudflare CEO seems (pretends?) to be downright delusional.

He acts like as if internet outside of Cloudflare doesn’t exist, he pretends that there are no alternatives. Either he’s actually insane or this is just a marketing strategy.