>Bakeries across the nation refuse to make cakes for patrons with far-left/far-right views
Sup Forums: "They are a private company and can deny service to anyone they like. Why are people getting so outraged?"
>Social media platforms refuse to give a platform to those with far-left/-far-right views
Sup Forums: too busy getting riled up about how the evil (((corporations))) hate muh freeze peach
Other urls found in this thread:
slate.com
unvis.it
twitter.com
There was a bakery here in California a few weeks back getting a lot of flake for not making a gay wedding cake. Bakery name was "tastries bakery". Apparently a bunch of left leaning faggits raided its yelp page with like 200 one star reviews. I went on and left a really nice, but fake 5 star review. Yelp ended up on taking down mine. Not sure if they took down the others too because I couldn't find the yelp page anymore. I think the whole yelp page might of gotten nuked. Who knows. I just can't stand the fact that you can't do anything without every one losing their shit. They're really needs to be an admendment to the constitution about the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason all at the discretion of the owner/manager.
Bumping.
yeah Sup Forums whats up with that?
>No we won't make a cake with you inserting a gerbil in your husband's ass
>Go to "Faggot Cakes R Us" 1 mile away and get cake made there instead
>No we won't let you post ideas we don't agree with on Google's services
>Go to racistideas.com and receive no financial support and have the same effective reach of yelling your ideas out your window.
Simply put, telling someone they can still spout their ideas in a venue no one will ever see or attend, is still censorship.
If you can find an alternative venue with the same level of reach or result, it's not censorship. Thus going to a different bakery is not censorship. Being forced to go to a different social media platform, when the one you're banned from has a monopoly, is censorship.
Are you equating baking a cake with Internet forums? Because if you are all I have to say is that this is terrible bait.
The OP is about bakeries and social media and the consequences of censorship.
You're also a faggot
Cake companies don't have the NSA, FBI and CIA in bed with them committing social engineering to control populations without ever getting their hands dirty
You fucking idiot
It's a private corporation. Should they not be able to do what the want? Eventually they'll censor so much people will hop ship because their platform is no longer useful as a search engine.
But it's not censorship if it's a private entity.
I've always considered real censorship kind of a government thing.
>Implying their pockets aren't deep enough to simply buy out all competition
They've also effectively no platformed other social media platforms by refusing to host their apps on their services.
I know you libertarian pussies that have taken over in Ron Paul's wake hate the words "anti-trust" but Google, Facebook, and Twitter have a literal monopoly over social media.
Actually they've all run afoul of standards and decency regulations on internet platforms. They've demonstrated that they're capable of policing content that violates no laws, but are still immune from being hit with lawsuits when failing to remove content that does violate our laws.
The free speech argument is a failure unless we introduce new laws to enforce free speech ideals on social media platforms. We however already effectively have those laws, just that nobody has bothered to sue.
>free speech
why do you faggots always miss the first few words?
>"congress shall make no law"
they're not congress.
they're not making a law.
therefore, they can tell you to shut the fuck up and take a hike.
Case law I'm citing:
slate.com
Because of Facebook, Twitter, and Google's urge to censor content that breaks no laws; they could find themselves in a position where they're legally liable for all content on their services.
Which results in the effective enforcement of free speech on internet platforms. Someone just needs to draft up a complaint.
The internet really shouldn't be private. It's like if the water company was left wing, and they decided to shut off your water for your ideas.
Thanks. I'm on my bathroom porn machine (cellphone).
And this article always seems to kill these threads.
Funny.
But bakeries are being sued and forced to pay "damages fees" because the state tells them they have to pay or goto jail.
But when Google and youtube violate your first amendment right, they get away with it with nothing said. State tells them nothing makes them pay nothing and no people are threatened with jail time
Its time for a revolution.
Then don't FORCE me to bake a fucking cake for your faggot ass then. Do you get it?
Being for one and being against the other is cherry picking.
Its my right as a FREE person to not sell tha cake to whom ever i chose not to for whatever reason I want.
Where is this right?
because I am FREE!
am I not FREE?
If I am not FREE..
Who is my SLAVE MASTER?
Who OWNS me?
thats because bakeries refuse far left opinions, unlike corporations that unfairly only pick out far right opinions to censor
Yeah, because they're refusing service to a bunch of honkeys. They're not a protected class so it's okay. That isn't a joke btw, that's the literal interpretation of anti-discrimination laws.
(((lol))) at your post
>Google violates 1st Amendment Rights
Wow, I didn't know Google was actually part of the federal government.
What you say is your RIGHT.
I am not implying that google is part of the government.
but as long as you are in the USA you have the right to free speech.
Im attempting to draw the contrast for you of how fucking fucked up
the country is.
I'm fine with being kicked off of google for something I said because they didn't like it.
I am Not ok with being FORCED to sell good and services to those I don't want to.
do you get it yet?
Google has a near monopoly on the internet. Some bakery in California does not.
When we release the new virus into google.
We will defeat the new World order.
Read