Nope, and based on that statement there’s no reason for me to discuss it with you further, since we fundamentally disagree where our rights come from in the GAE. The government is there to prevent me from starting a private army and taking all of your stuff, and things similar to that. They aren’t there to give or take away my army. They are the monopoly on violence that is now controlled by private interests, uncaring of the unwashed masses, beyond their use as pawns in the game.
gl
the GAE is the Globalist American Empire, for those who don’t know.
What needs to happen IMHO is that 230 lawsuit immunity thing needs to be repealed ASAP. That alone will fix a lot of the issues.
Now from a legal standpoint, these tech giants/gaming companies can do what they want. Its their stuff. They dont have to offer free speech platforms and they dont.
My issue is that they dont support the idea or spirit of free speech and what it actually means to a freedom loving society.
When they day comes to abolish all free speech (and it will be happening soon) these very people will be screaming that their rights to say what they want are being stolen.
And on the flipside. If we are allowed to say whatever we want wherever we want, Businesses lose the ability to control their product and the image of it.
Take away big corporations and replace that with small business… It can ruin them. Because let’s face it some people are awful and persistent.
The ability to say whatever we want in public that isn’t illegal is the right move. Not being able to say whatever you want In a space you don’t own… Also the right move
Unironically depends on how many other people agree with you and are willing to do something about it. The whole idea of the phrase “inalienable rights” is that they are not granted by the government, they are fundamental human rights and if the government tries to revoke them, you are morally correct in revolting.
So you still have to rely on the govt to acknowledge and protect that right? Its still ultimately granted to you by the govt.
Sure, if they try to take it away you have options. Like physical violence. But I am not talking about that. Anyways, if one were to revolt, they’d just create another govt to give them that right back.
My entire statement is that are what govts give and take away your rights. I was told I was wrong so I wanted clarification.
The basis on which the United States Constitution is written is the idea that this is not correct. In theory, the government is a tool which should be expected to protect your natural human rights. Your rights do not stem from the government, the function of the government should stem from your rights. In practice, whether or not a government is a functional tool for the people is fairly contentious.
What I can say is this, that what we say on social media can get carried over to other platforms, so we should all be careful with our social media usage, making outrageous racist/sexist or homophobic statements for example on another platform may come back to bite you,
I’ve heard of people that lost certain job opportunities because of things they said fifteen years ago on social media.
In fact, the only place I don’t censor myself is here on the wow forum, but even here I strive to at least be as politically correct as possible, though sometimes my convictions on some issues come out.
Just watch what you say online, and think before you speak.
Should businesses have inherent rights that protect them from people? And on the flip side, should people have inherent rights that are protected from businesses? It seems like you believe that the function of government is to protect businesses at the cost of human rights.
Okay, first - how many people actually read the ToS before clicking “Accept”? I’d have to say probably not very many. I used to? Before it became abundantly clear that the gist was “You play our game at our sufferance. You have no rights you stupid cash dispensor. Now give us money!”
Second, the ToS changes over time. It might be acceptably horrible in the beginning. But somewhere along the line, I can almost guarantee someone’s slipped “ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn” in there and is summoning Cthulhu onto your PC.
Third, Assuming the company even gives refunds. There’ve been several instances where they’ve been denied. Steam being a case in point.
Fourth, at the end of the day, this is all just a series of hoops and hurdles standing in the way of me logging into a game in which my friends are already impatiently waiting. How are they going to react when I tell them “sorry, I was reading the fine print”. Unless they’re all a bunch of contract lawyers, I guarantee you their reaction is going to be “… nerd.”
I agree, a lot of our interaction with service agreements these days has become “accept terms and conditions that waive a lot of your rights or you won’t be allowed to use almost any service/device”
Again, that’s not to mention the amount of time you’ve put into a WoW account before the terms change at the whim of the company.
Have you lived under a rock for the last 10 years? These are some old topics.
The biggest one most recently is bodily autonomy. Then you have many states essentially outlawing trans people, but think they’re being clever and subtle about it by targeting drag.
Freedom of speech must inherently mean freedom from consequence, else it’s not freedom. This is like saying “yeah, you’re free to commit whatever crime you want, but we’ll still put you in jail”
Why shouldn’t they? Businesses aren’t some autonomous creation - they are an organization of people. Do those people not have the right to determine what happens in their property?
You all keep decrying the idea that businesses can restrict anything, but I bet if I started naming some hypothetical scenarios of what could happen in your workplace you’d start drawing lines real quick.
But there’s an important distinction between laws which protect the individuals within a company and laws which protect the company itself (in some cases from those same individuals)
“I if i can’t do it in front of children, i don’t even want to do it then!”
okay, bud.
If a schizophrenic has children, how much say do you think they should have over the welfare of the child, when the voices start telling them things? When they start thinking the child is the reason they keep getting headaches everytime the radio gets turned on?
If you want to kill babies, ok, but be honest about what you’re doing. Also, move to a state where people accept that. Its what people have done with the devils lettuce. You guys cry if you can’t crap all over the benches at the public park, when you could just move to california, where everyone can crap where ever they want, free of consequences. You can’t live without other people bending to accept your conception of what constitutes normal and acceptable, and any opposition to your view and you’re completely silent when your allies call for ACTUAL VIOLENCE.
I want to make clear that I am not agreeing with the OP, the person who allegedly got banned, or the person talking about specific civil rights issues.
Simply saying that it’s valid to have a discussion on whether companies have an ethical obligation to protect consumers’ rights, and whether the government has an ethical obligation to protect consumers from corporations.