This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Politics
  3. Twitter and privately-decided company social justice for-the-public

User Info: Thebrah

Thebrah
2 months ago#1
Should companies be able to dictate morals, refuse service, etc. for any reason? - Results (51 votes)
Yes
37.25% (19 votes)
19
No
31.37% (16 votes)
16
Only privately owned companies
29.41% (15 votes)
15
I'm unsure
1.96% (1 vote)
1
This poll is now closed.
https://youtu.be/x0HmIC99468

Just wondering because this guy got sued for dropping the next Elder Scrolls release date. His videos are constantly taken down. Now he got wind of a rumor about the name of the next Elder Scrolls and twitter banned him.

Like, this guy pours his heart and soul into a stupid video game series and private companies are f***ing him up his ass for it. It's mindboggling.

I know, Muh Alex Jones Deserved It s***.

but you know that saying, first they came for ___, and I wasn't ___, so I didn't speak up.

When will it end? Will we all get banned from all websites because we talk about rumors? Is that okay?

have a nice day. I have to go get some projects done. 1 ip per vote.
Most capitalists don't know that you can't become rich without doing the opposite of Jesus Christ's golden rule. Maybe that's why rich folk don't go to heaven.

User Info: Dynedux

Dynedux
2 months ago#2
It's no different than Reddit, IG, or even gamefaqs. They don't even need to give a reason, if they want to ban you they will. Don't like it? Don't use their service.
The idea of "doxxing" is idiotic. Why should anyone be able to hide behind the anonymity of the internet?-AndreLeGeant

User Info: kozlo100

kozlo100
2 months ago#3
I'm not sure that banning people for violating terms of service constitutes 'dictating morals', but yes companies should be able to refuse service to people for whatever reason, except where explicitly protected by anti-discrimination laws and regulations.
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.

User Info: Atombender

Atombender
2 months ago#4
They do it all the time. Through donations to political candidates.

Why do you think that some megacorps like Exxon-Mobil, Alphabet and Amazon are allowed to pay jack s*** in taxes?
"Another visitor! Stay a while! Stay forever!"

User Info: willythemailboy

willythemailboy
2 months ago#5
Dynedux posted...
Don't like it? Don't use their service.

Now the real question: should it be legal to discriminate against someone for not using those services. Courts have ruled that it's legal for an employer to demand access to an applicant's social media accounts as part of a job interview, and it's completely legal to refuse to hire someone for not having those social media accounts.

Should someone be unemployable because they've been kicked off - or simply refused to use - Facebook or Twitter?
He who laughs last, thinks fastest.

User Info: Dynedux

Dynedux
2 months ago#6
willythemailboy posted...
Dynedux posted...
Don't like it? Don't use their service.

Now the real question: should it be legal to discriminate against someone for not using those services.


Absolutely not.
The idea of "doxxing" is idiotic. Why should anyone be able to hide behind the anonymity of the internet?-AndreLeGeant

User Info: Thebrah

Thebrah
2 months ago#7
This seems a little split down the middle.

No one thinks this is worth a rethink as the world's wealth becomes increasingly concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer individuals who control more and more of the companies we deal with?

Some rich person could trample over your voice on every platform in the future if things continue as they are going.

So if you're a person who bases policies on future trajectories, you could easily make the observation that unless this sort of thing were outlawed at some point, the rich could have complete control over the freedom of speech of the poor.

Something to think about

You should ask yourself if that is the kind of world you want to live in and see your children living in.
Most capitalists don't know that you can't become rich without doing the opposite of Jesus Christ's golden rule. Maybe that's why rich folk don't go to heaven.

User Info: gogues

gogues
2 months ago#8
I think that companies like that should simply have a clearly defined terms of service. If someone breaks the TOS and gets banned then fine.

If they want to include some sort of morality in their enforcement, put it in the TOS for all to see.

User Info: Nitro378

Nitro378
2 months ago#9
Thebrah posted...
This seems a little split down the middle.

No one thinks this is worth a rethink as the world's wealth becomes increasingly concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer individuals who control more and more of the companies we deal with?

Some rich person could trample over your voice on every platform in the future if things continue as they are going.

So if you're a person who bases policies on future trajectories, you could easily make the observation that unless this sort of thing were outlawed at some point, the rich could have complete control over the freedom of speech of the poor.

Something to think about

You should ask yourself if that is the kind of world you want to live in and see your children living in.

I love this s***, suddenly conservatives are up in arms about consumer rights and the power of corporations when it's because companies are telling them they can't accuse the parents of dead kids of being paid actors. f***ing world we live in, I swear. I wish MAD had happened sometimes.
Why is it only called class war when we fight back? https://youtu.be/fUuK6JtP7xA
Number of 30-day suspensions for attacking Zionism: 3

User Info: videospirit

videospirit
2 months ago#10
I mean, if it bothers you that much, demand the government create a public platform.

That's the only way you're going to get one that isn't tyrannical.
  1. Boards
  2. Politics
  3. Twitter and privately-decided company social justice for-the-public
  • Topic Archived