| Anyone that politically aligns with them. They say that explicitly: > We support individuals, collectives, communities and groups whose political and social activities fit within this worldview and who share with us some fundamental principles: anti-fascism, anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-militarism They don't receive any money for this. It's 100% volunteer services. |
| |
| ▲ | p-e-w a day ago | parent [-] | | Then they are an activist group, not an “infrastructure provider” as claimed elsewhere in this thread, and holding them responsible for what their members do with the accounts they give them seems entirely fair. | | |
| ▲ | culi a day ago | parent | next [-] | | You want them to be "held accountable" for supporting groups that don't align with the ideology of the US whitehouse. | | |
| ▲ | a day ago | parent | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | p-e-w 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If you select who you provide services to based on their ideology, you can’t shrug and say “I’m just an infrastructure provider, same as the electrical grid” when it turns out that some of those individuals committed crimes using the stuff you gave them. That’s a very different situation compared to the standard “sign up with your email here”. The provider is responsible because they picked their clients, rather than their clients picking them. | | |
| ▲ | culi 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > If you select who you provide services to based on their ideology Nobody in the world DOES NOT do this. If an advertiser takes down their ads from a website because that website is spreading white supremacy then they are doing just the same. As they should. Also where do they claim they are "just an infrastructure provider"? They clearly say throughout that they provide services for anti-racist/anti-sexist/etc orgs that can't afford to do it themselves. They do not make a profit. They are not a company. They are literally a group of friends helping orgs out. | |
| ▲ | mdp2021 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Look, really not. When the bartender glances at the customer and decides whether they have already drank too much, if the bartender makes a mistake and the customer later crashes into something it is not the bartender's responsibility. If the bartender decides as a rule "first of all, if they seem uncertain on their legs it is already a no", again that is just a codification of the former. |
|
| |
| ▲ | jscd a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | being selective about who you provide free services to makes you an activist group? | | |
| ▲ | inigyou a day ago | parent [-] | | Yes, see, if you sell guns, but you only sell guns to people who promise to use them for defense, but don't sell them to people who promise to murder, that makes you an activist gun seller and personally responsible for whatever happens with those guns. | | |
| ▲ | mdp2021 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | Either you wanted to be sarcastic or your simile did not work well. | | |
| ▲ | culi 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The metaphor is ridiculous and that's the point. GP is saying the GGP's argument is just as ridiculous | |
| ▲ | ithkuil 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That simile captures perfectly the logic here. I don't think it's technically sarcasm EDIT: a better simile would be if guns were giving away for free. You can see how that could be construed as increasing the responsibility of the provider if a receiver then does something illegal with it | | |
| ▲ | mdp2021 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | I really do not see that responsibility. It is so perplexing, so odd a perspective that some of you are advancing, that I could (jokingly, I understand good intention) call it resembling "gaslighting" from here - do you know, for example, in the series Parks and Recreation the topos of Ben not understanding why Li'l Sebastian would be a big deal? I'll repeat a few of similes I used, with this latest: somebody giving guns away for free would be /less/ responsible if he screened the receivers first; somebody serving drinks would be /less/ responsible if he checked the costumers first; somebody in possess of a hammer would be /less/ responsible if he lent it to known vetted people instead of just anyone... I get it that some see that cases for the opposite exist, but I would need a strong example because those provided made me strengthen the view I advanced instead of seeing an acquired responsibility on those who select their customers. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | mdp2021 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > fair No, with these limited elements. The filter may just be "of course I will not provide my (free) service to people that may use it in what I call a repugnant way". When you know Harry is a rogue CEO, say a misinformation spreader or the issuer of unethical products, and you refuse to work for it, to provide it your services: does that make you an "activist"? Many people will call it "just the normal right thing to do". This is similar to people here calling certain positions "centrist" or "extremist" - and that entirely depends on how those positions are interpreted beyond their dumb (not telling) label, and on the dumb labels over said labels. | | |
| ▲ | p-e-w 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Many people will call it "just the normal right thing to do". It’s absolutely not a normal thing to do for entities that want to use the “we are just infrastructure, our users are responsible for their actions” excuse. In fact, such entities (e.g. power grid, telecom) are often legally prohibited from choosing their clients, and in exchange aren’t held responsible for what their clients do with their services. | | |
| ▲ | mdp2021 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Also see my other post. So if you had a hammer in your yard, and somebody took it and misused it, you would not be responsible, but if you gave it to your neighbour and he used it to crush a skull, you the owner of the hammer would be responsible? It is clearly at least the opposite. Abstract from the "paid service", but see that. The rule you propose (filtering would create responsibility) makes no sense. Try to show why it would be so, maybe. | |
| ▲ | inigyou 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The government should pass a law forbidding blog hosts from choosing their clients if that's what they want to happen. Otherwise, blog hosts are allowed to choose which blogs they host. |
|
|
|
|
