This is a stronger comment if you first make the case that refusal to do business with someone is censorship.
I mean, I see at least a vague analogy between not doing business with Nazis and not inviting boring people over for dinner. Is choosing dinner guests censorship?
Well, it's a fact whichever side uses it: refusing to do business with someone is not, by definition, censorship. In which cases it's right or wrong is a matter for debate, but it doesn't serve that debate to incorrectly call it censorship in order to benefit from the stong negative connotations of that word.
Choosing not to do business with a company is NOT censorship. The only way you could believe it to be so is if you believe that the Daily Stormer has a right to speech, but no one else does.
That is beside the point though - it's an analogy to illustrate what I mean: we can come up with an example that doesn't have anything to do with money if you'd prefer. The main point is that we're not obliged to have them as customers, and if _everyone_ is getting to the point where they're saying "we don't want you as a customer" maybe the problem is the customer, not the "censorship".
The thing is, people and corporations saying they don’t really want to hear or spread bull shit isn’t censorship. It’s basic social contract/etiquette and a right. I have the right to hit “block user” - does this mean I’m censoring someone? If not, where is the distinction drawn? If yes, well, that’s a hell of a slippery slope…
Setting aside for a moment the false dichotomy you are putting forward that somehow this company's business should be treated differently than any other company's business--which, FWIW, to me is a pretty ridiculous assertion--your frame here is kind of irrelevant to the question of whether there's irony to be had from censoring someone over censorship: as many others have pointed out in this thread, is nothing more than the well-known "paradox of tolerance".
It isn't censorship. No one is telling Parler they're not free to do what they want. AWS is telling Parler they don't want them as a customer. That is not censorship. Whether a business should be able to refuse a customer is an interesting question. People on the political right have historically believed they should (refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple is often cited as a case of such freedom).
There is also an argument that AWS is now so big and important that they should be treated like a utility, and then refusing customers is something that they shouldn't necessarily be allowed to do. I'm not sure how I feel about that argument though.
People not listening, a store choosing not to sell something, and a company choosing not to broadcast your information to their audience are all scenarios that are not censorship.
I have never once mentioned the word "censorship", and that is not my only concern. I would be saying the same thing if someone were asking a coffee company why they continue to sell coffee to this evil organization - even though no one would claim that the coffee company is "censoring" someone if they refuse service for this reason.
My point is more related to this idea of a private company punishing an individual or organization for behavior it doesn't like. I believe this is a dangerous notion, and we should be demanding it stops, not encouraging it to happen more.
I also don't agree that a private business should be forced to carry products it doesn't want to.
If I write a book on Satanism, should Lifeway (large Christian bookstore) be forced to carry it? If they don't carry it are they censoring me? Do I have a right to have my book carried at EVERY bookstore? Of course not.
Censorship is not a good thing, but it is also ridiculous how the supposed small government, ant-regulation, free and open market, capitalist right-wing thinks businesses should be forced to present views the business does not condone, agree with, or violates terms of use/service. These views are not congruent.
That isn't censorship at all though. Both of those people still have wikipedia pages and it's fairly easy to find their writings. Calling this "censorship" is like saying it's "censorship" to kick someone out of a zoom meeting for being disruptive.
What seems to be actually happening is everybody who tries to do business with those people knows what they're trying to do and finds it objectionable. At what point will you consider that if nobody wants what they're selling, what they're selling might actually be bad? How many times do they have to fail before we can collectively accept this? If you keep getting kicked out of zoom meetings for being disruptive, at some point shouldn't you accept that you are at fault? I get the feeling that some entrepreneurs get sucked up into this idea that we can create a world where no one is ever wrong, without realizing that's a horrible idea. That's another form of toxic positivity.
reply