Here is my argument for why access to digital services should be considered a civil right equal to access to physical services.

As a Jewish person and as a gay person I am protected under anti-discrimination law (varied for being gay).

A store cannot ban me for either.
A store could not, for example, have a policy that bans 'immoral behavior' on their property and then selectively enforce this only on gay couples who happen to either simply walk in or who hold hands or show affection of any kind.

No liberal perspective would agree.
If this happened to me I would be able to argue that my civil rights had been violated.

Even without official legal protections, this would be enough to file a lawsuit, launch legislation and create public outcry until it was officially illegal to do so.
In the same way I couldn't be denied a cell phone plan, or a TV or internet service access or a newspaper *because* I am Jewish. A company cannot say, 'We don't serve Jews." They also cannot show up at my house to install broadband, see my yarmulke and refuse to do so.
There is certainly a libertarian argument for why companies should be free to do business however they choose, but that is not the reality of the law as it is today.

There is a very good reason why the libertarian argument against the Civil Rights Act failed.
Most agreed public services should not discriminate. But private services were controversial because libertarians argued the government should not be interfering with private business decisions.

So why did that reasonable argument fail?
A critical mass of businesses in the south and throughout other areas of the country for different populations, chose to specifically refuse service to black Americans, as well as other groups.

It became so pervasive black Americans had fewer and fewer options.
They simply could not participate in public life equally. The conditions were arbitrary and burdensome. There were black businesses but they were limited and arbitrarily restricted as well.

There was no option for market forces to intervene due to artificial suppression.
Because of this the only choice was to federally prevent businesses from discriminating at all based on race in order to force open the markets and allow natural competition and fair participation to take place.

We are in this same situation today with political affiliation.
As we have watched multiple times, its not just one service or one website. When a person is determined to be unacceptable due to their beliefs they are banned in a domino effect. Usually starting with all social media, then web hosting, then email services and so on.
On the individual level it looks like companies choosing to distance themselves from one or two highly disruptive people causing too much chaos and harming their business.

But because of the nature of the left, it does not stop there. It becomes a *category* of people.
Soon rather than one lunatic spouting death threats, the policy of 'dangerous' or 'hate' morphs into anyone sharing views the left find offensive. They label them as policy violations, ban them and the domino effect begins based on this accusation.
The consequence of this is that a person can lose the ability to not only engage in public communication, but also banking, commerce, email communication necessary for access to most online services, webhosting etc. A person can be denied access to participation.
But again, its not an issue of a selection of individuals, but one of a category of people.

This is where political affiliation comes in.
Political affiliation is like religion in that it is a set of strongly held beliefs organized into groups and inseparable to the person.
I can no more choose to be conservative than I can choose to be Jewish in terms of public perception, similar to being gay or ethnic or racial distinctions. Other people define me. It doesn't matter how I define myself.

Also, I cannot separate myself from my core values.
There are many topics conservatives cannot discuss openly without violating the left's definitions of hate or violence under leftwing managed social media platforms.

Again, once labeled all platforms end up banning you too regardless of your actions.
As a conservative I essentially cannot participate in a variety of public topics without violating Twitter's rules, subjectively and selectively applied, whereas a liberal person can.

Similar to a gay vs. straight person showing affection in the above mentioned store.
Also, even if I cease all political engagement, the fact that I used to engage in an ever-growing list of unacceptable views is enough to permanently ban me as well, even years later.

I have no option to behave in a way that allows me to stay within the rules.
All social media and the majority of major platforms and businesses have all agreed in their TOS that any violation at any time is enough to remove you, including speech or photos etc., taken outside of the platform or even outside of the internet. Being filmed by someone else.
I argue that Twitter is the central hub of political and news communication for the world and that when denied access you are denied the ability to participate in global communication and information access.

You can get it elsewhere, but you cannot participate.
Similarly facebook is the central hub for family and friends to connect, share a decade of history and photos and memories together and maintain those connections. LinkedIn is the hub for professional development and so on.

They are distinct and central services.
The water company cannot turn off your water and permanently ban you from ever using their service again, with every other water company doing the same because you attended a Trump rally.

The private business/public utility discrimination issue is muddy.
Because a person can be denied access through a joint effort of many monopolies or dominant corporations simultaneously, there is no free market force for them as an individual or a member of a group to fight back.

There is no 'starting your own' either, as we saw with Parler.
The internet is not an optional tool you can live without any longer. It is a primary central source of nearly all services reasonable people need to live. These companies often with dual presence should not be able to take action online they could not take in real life.
I argue that digital services should align with physical stores in this situation.

I also argue that political affiliation, real or perceived, should not be grounds for removal.

I argue that to prevent the above, open platforms should not be able to ban legal content.
It is both an individual right to choose services to use that are open to the public and to participate in communication and commerce, as long as it is legal.

I do not believe platforms should be held responsible for the content of their users.
I see this as a new world which we did not anticipate and we were not prepared for.

We never imagined we would have to worry that if we attended a political rally we might lose our access to email or our ability to connect with our family on facebook.
The argument of other services is insufficient as well. We have well-established standards that you cannot demand a gay person or a Jewish person go elsewhere if a public organization does not wish to serve them.

It is not reasonable to make this singular exclusion.
There is always an important debate around religious liberty and the requirement of participation in events or activities you morally oppose. But Twitter or facebook allowing content they morally oppose is not a valid comparison.
My solution:

I propose a couple things that would, I think and hope, resolve this issue for everyone.

1) We need to include Political Affiliation as a protected status. It is as meaningful and inseparable as religion and its used against peopled in the same sadistic way.
This means that you cannot overtly discriminate against a person based on *any* political affiliation. You cannot get them fired. You cannot secretly code their political views into your anti-whatever policies.

No discrimination.
As long as it is legal, it is a right.
2) We need to include Political Affiliation in hate crime legislation.

You cannot harass, stalk, doxx, surround someone's house or physically assault them because they are or you think they are a member of a political group you hate.
3) We need an Internet Bill of Rights. The internet *is* our public square, it is our system of communication, it is our centralized platform for life. It needs to be treated just like physical life.

We should have a right to access and use public services.
4) A publisher can edit content, a platform cannot. This does not apply to *illegal* content or adult content regarding age access laws.

It does not matter what a person says, if its legal.

If you want to publish a website, its different.
Although it remains a question if a website could refuse to publish work from a Jew or a gay person.
5) Anti-trust and monopoly laws should adapt to understand centralized systems like Twitter and Google and Facebook rather than pretending they are equal with Hotmail or the chatroom of a forum.

At a certain size or usage, the utility question should come into play.
6) If a company is publicly traded then it should be held to the same standards physical companies are.

Its not My Blog Dot Net Dot TV. Its the cable company and it needs regulation because of its size and its influence.

No one can argue the global influence of Twitter.
It is not a comfortable argument, but I believe that simply mocking the notion of its importance is defeating the purpose.

Its not just a website or a series of websites. Its not just crazies being kicked off for sharing hate speech.
More importantly, it is an issue of individual and group rights. We are facing an absolute overwhelmingly dominant power arbitrarily decide that we - YOU - and me - should not be allowed to engage in modern life at all because of how we feel about social/political topics.
I think its time we face the reality of this and even though it goes against libertarian instincts, I adamantly argue we are facing a similar situation as we did when the Civil Rights Act was passed.

Collective, targeted suppression based on narrow characteristics.
It should be noted that when you apply for immigration under marriage your social media can be used as evidence by the government to determine its validity.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Chad Felix Greene

Chad Felix Greene Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @chadfelixg

9 Jan
The left believes bad ideas reproduce in the open.

You let someone share a bad idea and it multiplies with the validation of an official platform.

That makes it 'dangerous' as exposure is like a virus.

They think if you suppress the people with the bad idea, it will suffocate.
It seems simple to them.
Trump incited his followers to commit violence through his rhetoric, ban Trump and you remove the rhetoric.

No one else gets infected.
But then you must remove all those already infected...

Then you must stop the rhetoric from repeating.
Its a simple issue of threat reduction, not speech suppression.

But they refuse to recognize that in doing so they validate the rhetoric, turn it into dogma and it becomes mythology with more and more loyal adherents.

It goes underground.
It grows in power and legitimacy.
Read 4 tweets
9 Jan
If you are not a journalist or writer or if you are not trying to build a public profile right now, please:

- Use a generic AVI and take out your name and location from your profile.
- Turn your privacy settings on facebook off for searches and only let your friends see you.
Your facebook doesn't need to have your employer on it or your town or your phone number. Your friends and family already know who you are.

Same for any other social media you use.

If you use LinkedIn set your profile to private so only your connections can see you.
Basically you do not want to be easily found with a google search of your name.

Its easier than you think and its best to lock down. You don't need an open profile.

The only exception is if you are job hunting. Again, disguise your twitter and its less of an issue.
Read 5 tweets
9 Jan
Here is the insidiousness of what is being proposed here.

You don't have to be actively political at all.
In fact you could cease all political affiliation today. You're done.
Retired.

But someone finds your name or photo associated with Trump from when you were?...
That's where we are now.
Its not that you said something so offensive that your employer must have a PR nightmare to manage.

An activist hunting for Trump supporters, which they are actively doing and being encouraged to do from Congress members, finds and outs you.
They put pressure on your company to fire you, claiming they have a secret white supremacist terrorist in their office! What else can your company do?

That's not all. Once they name you, suddenly every service you use gets blasted with your info and demands to ban you.
Read 8 tweets
9 Jan
I believe that a business should be able to conduct itself legally as it pleases. This includes deciding how it associates itself.

But the law is clear on discrimination.
The issue I have is two fold:

1) The laws are not being enforced equally or fairly.
2) The issue of discrimination has become too overwhelming to simply rely on market forces to correct it. We are witnessing multiple massive corporations in charge of huge swaths of the market act together to target individuals belonging to one group.

That is a problem.
I passionately defending the Masterpiece Cakeshop case because I passionately believe a person should not be forced to act against their morality.

I objected to Kim Davis because she denied an eligible citizen access to their legal rights.

The distinctions are clear to me.
Read 6 tweets
9 Jan
Ok @Heritage we need your help.

We have to stop this from impacting the real world before we can even begin fighting for online freedom.

We need every @GOP leader in the country to immediately begin acting to protect conservatives from discrimination and violence.
Every red state must include Political Affiliation in their list of protected classes.

This is a requirement.

You cannot discriminate against a person in business, commerce or public life due to their real or perceived political beliefs or legal activism.
Hate crime law.

Targeted harassment, vandalism, intimidation and violence based on real or perceived political affiliation must be illegal.

We must act now to legally prevent *all* political intimidation and violence.
Read 4 tweets
9 Jan
We must begin behaving as a group being targeted.

We are a group based on our shared moral and ethical beliefs.

We are a being targeted and persecuted for our political affiliation.

Be very clear here.
This is about *who* we are, not any specific action or speech.
What do LGBT groups do?

They organize with a unified message.

They lobby their local and state representatives directly.

They continuously file lawsuits to address perceived concerns.

This is what we must do.
The @Heritage must organize this effort in all Republican controlled states Monday.

Begin with a clear problem statement: Political Affiliation is being used to discriminate against American citizens in employment, commerce, communication and online access.
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!