Cancel Culture turned its gaze to Baby Yoda

Originally posted by dadudemon
No. The CEO made a statement about Christian values. That's it. It's another one of those "fake news" disinformation stories. They did not take an anti-homosexual stance. Doing so would have been illegal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chick-fil-A_and_LGBT_people#Statements_by_Dan_Cathy

No, that is not it. People have been boycotting Chik-fil-A, because they donate to anti-LGBTQ organizations. So Dan Cathy tried to change the subject, and say the mean boycotters were persecuting him for simply having "traditional beliefs" about marriage. No one gives a **** what Dan Cathy personally believes, and never have. It has always been, and continues to be, about LGBTQ and allied people not handing over money to a company that will then give it to organizations whose aim is to harm those same people.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
That would be an example of cancel culture. So in your idealized scenario, cancel culture is an essential corrective mechanism in a free market. So if you support one, you necessarily have to support the other.

When im talking about cancel culture im not talking about freedom of association or exclusion.

Im talking about the asymmetrical power of platforms like fb, twitter, yt, and how they fail to just abide by american law even tho they take government loans.

It's like the big kid version of dont boo for the other team, cheer for your own team louder.

I am not hearing a "no."

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, that is not it. People have been boycotting Chik-fil-A, because they donate to anti-LGBTQ organizations. So Dan Cathy tried to change the subject, and say the mean boycotters were persecuting him for simply having "traditional beliefs" about marriage. No one gives a **** what Dan Cathy personally believes, and never have. It has always been, and continues to be, about LGBTQ and allied people not handing over money to a company that will then give it to organizations whose aim is to harm those same people.

You should be more honest: a Christian charity is almost always going to be pro-Traditional family which the Auth-Left in the US likes to call "anti-LGBT."

Such as the Salvation Army and Fellowship of Christian Athletes.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/30/fact-check-chick-fil-a-has-not-resumed-donations-groups-oppose-lgbtq-rights/3244765001/

And to your larger point: you're wrong. The backlash that made headlines for months was Dan Cathy's statements, NOT the donations because almost no one gave a shit. No one cares about mentally ill people (very near 100% of these people who rage about things like this have severe mental illnesses) raging against a privately owned Christian company holding Christian beliefs and their donations to Christian organizations.

Here's the evidence:

A championing of a legal framework that is based on "traditional marriages", only between a man and a woman, is pretty accurately called anti-LGBT in a world where gay people have the civil and legal right to marriage, though. So I don't see that framing as too inaccurate, a lot of the time. And often it goes beyond marriage, and there is a desire to "cure" or "change" gay people, often with deeply harmful results, that too I would say is accurately described as anti-LGBT.

In terms of the chic-fil-a boycott, I don't really care about it much either way, these kinds of individualist consumer boycott seem pretty meaningless to me.

Originally posted by Artol
A championing of a legal framework that is based on "traditional marriages", only between a man and a woman, is pretty accurately called anti-LGBT in a world where gay people have the civil and legal right to marriage, though. So I don't see that framing as too inaccurate, a lot of the time. And often it goes beyond marriage, and there is a desire to "cure" or "change" gay people, often with deeply harmful results, that too I would say is accurately described as anti-LGBT.

In terms of the chic-fil-a boycott, I don't really care about it much either way, these kinds of individualist consumer boycott seem pretty meaningless to me.

👆

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Im talking about the asymmetrical power of platforms like fb, twitter, yt, and how they fail to just abide by american law even tho they take government loans.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
What American laws are these companies breaking, within the context of cancel culture?

Why are you so fixated on the legal aspect?
You do know there are other aspects of human life, yes?
You also asked about the legal definition of hate sperch, which doesnt exist.

Tho tbf, i didnt know the full extent of the civil rights laws when i was chatting with ddm.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
*cries while rocking back and forth in cold shower and holding a trophy that says "best actor" from a third grade production on wizard of oz i was in, that i made up just now.*

Now your getting it😂

Originally posted by Artol
A championing of a legal framework that is based on "traditional marriages", only between a man and a woman, is pretty accurately called anti-LGBT in a world where gay people have the civil and legal right to marriage, though. So I don't see that framing as too inaccurate, a lot of the time. And often it goes beyond marriage, and there is a desire to "cure" or "change" gay people, often with deeply harmful results, that too I would say is accurately described as anti-LGBT.

This is why I think the government should be kicked out of "marriages" and leave that purely as a private matter.

Instead, the legal label should be "civil unions." This would allow guardians to have civil unions with the people they take care of and get the same protections and benefits under the law. Expands "marriage" to a bunch of different kinds of relationships. What if my BFF (this is just an example), who is my roommate, needs my insurance and we share our household costs? That's a Civil Union. We are not married. But we could benefit form a Civil Union.

Originally posted by Artol
In terms of the chic-fil-a boycott, I don't really care about it much either way, these kinds of individualist consumer boycott seem pretty meaningless to me.

That's usually true. However, in the case of cancel culture over stupid shit, like a very small group of people losing their shit because Dan Cathy said that shit about 'traditional families', there was a counter-protest and Chic-Fil-A got a ton of business. They were packed.

Same thing with Goya foods.

So the boycotts backfired and the counter-protests increased revenues.

I love it when counter-cancel-culture protests do this. 🙂

Oh, I'm mostly a utilitarian when it comes to consumer products. As long as the product didn't cause serious harm, I usually buy. I don't buy Nike's or Tyson foods, anymore. I still buy Apple products: some of the poor Chinese who work these jobs would lose their only source of good income if we forced Apple to pull out of China (NPR did a story over this and the Chinese workers are super upset about the woke westerners trying to take away a good wage job from them).

Originally posted by Tzeentch
What American laws are these companies breaking, within the context of cancel culture?

Within which set of laws do you want to start?

Censorship to Maintain Monopolies:

Sherman Act
Clayton Act
Federal Trade Commissions Act

Censorship of Free Speech
Communications Decency Act

Here's a write up I did about the CDA as it applies to twitter and Facebook Censorship:

Originally posted by dadudemon

1. Predictions, like Trump made, are not fact-checkable in the way that Twitter tried to demonstrate. They can provide opinions but calling it a fact check is dishonest.

2. They used CNN and Washington Post as one of their fact-checker sources which is among the most antagonistic anti-Trump sources in existence. A bias that has clear implications in this entire mess.

3. Censoring and making yourself a publisher:
a. Twitter ceases to be a content provider under section 230 of the Communications and Decency Act if they wish to editorialize content which specifically and directly applies to tweets made by the president where they try to dishonestly "fact check" a prediction. By definition, this makes them a publisher and they now fall under the publisher regulations and that makes them lose their Section 230 protections under CDA. Because they've done this, they have indicated that they exercised editorial control over the content published on their platform which makes them liable for the content published. This was specifically explored in the case Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co.

https://h2o.law.harvard.edu/cases/4540

b. Twitter's move with this is basically Twitter deciding when they can censor the government. This gets into political peen-waiving that you NEVER want to get into with the federal government when they have the power to regulate you.

c. Twitter does not have the resources or man-power to start filtering content across the board. This opens them up for further liabilities if they start trying to fact check and censor content. In court and under case-law, they must demonstrate that they made a reasonable due care effort to clean up content on their platform. That includes AI auto-filtering and tagging based on keywords. But that doesn't even come close to being good enough. If they start censoring the PotUS' content, this opens them up to a lot of litigation. Any lawyer who works in Tort and is not a complete idiot would be readily aware of this and the implications of the CompuServe case law that applies to Section 230.

4. Editorializing is "to express a personal opinion, especially when you should be giving a report of the facts only."

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/editorialize

What Twitter has done is quite specifically editorializing especially when they label their content as "get the facts about (xyz)..."

Further reading on the CDA:
https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230

And, continued:

Enter the Internet, in the early 1990s. Users started speaking on online bulletin boards, such as America Online, Compuserve, Prodigy, and the like, and of course started libeling each other. This led to two early decisions: Cubby v. Compuserve, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 1991), and Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co. (N.Y. trial Ct. 1995).

Cubby held that Internet Service Provid_ers (such as Compuserve) were entitled to be treated as distributors, not publishers.
Stratton Oakmont held that only Service providers that exercised no editorial control (such as Compuserve) over publicly posted materials would get distributor treatment, and service providers that exercised some editorial control (such as Prodigy)—for instance, by removing vulgarities—would be treated as publishers.
Neither considered the possibility that an ISP could actually be neither a publisher nor a distributor but a categorically immune platform, perhaps because at the time only entities that had a legal obligation not to edit were treated as platforms. And Stratton Oakmont's conclusion that Prodigy was a publisher because it " actively utilize[ed] technology and manpower to delete notes from its computer bulletin boards on the basis of offensiveness and 'bad taste,'" is inconsistent with the fact that distributors (such as bookstores and libraries) have always had the power to select what to distribute (and what to stop distributing), without losing the limited protection that distributor liability offered.

https://reason.com/volokh/2020/05/28/47-u-s-c-%C2%A7-230-and-the-publisher-distributor-platform-distinction/

But where this sits is in case law, currently. The inevitable outcome is the modification of Section 230 protections. Multiple lawsuits at play and the march towards a re-writing or even stricter regulation will happen as soon as the first case is settled at the Supreme Court level. Companies know this and have already spun up internal task forces so they can quickly adjust when they inevitably have to stop censoring.

But don't pay attention to anything I said: you'll gain no wisdom, here.

Originally posted by ilikecomics
Why are you so fixated on the legal aspect?

Originally posted by dadudemon
But don't pay attention to anything I said: you'll gain no wisdom, here.

We know for a fact that in *general* almost all of these companies have had run ins with the law- it wasn't too long ago that Zuck was testifying before congress, afterall.

However, comics concern seems to be that companies like YT/Twitter banning people they don't like from their services is illegal.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
However, comics concern seems to be that companies like YT/Twitter banning people they don't like from their services is illegal.

That's what my conclusory statement was about.

The inevitable outcome is the modification of Section 230 protections. Multiple lawsuits at play and the march towards a re-writing or even stricter regulation will happen as soon as the first case is settled at the Supreme Court level. Companies know this and have already spun up internal task forces so they can quickly adjust when they inevitably have to stop censoring.

It is currently "gray." But the inevitable result will be a ruling against them and then a subsequent lobbying to get a new law or a law change because they have hundreds of billions of dollars.

Originally posted by Tzeentch
You explicitly stated American law....

Ohhh, yeah. I mean it in the way that america already has free speech laws, thus creating their own is unnecessary and where all thr outcry over bias is coming from.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You should be more honest: a Christian charity is almost always going to be pro-Traditional family which the Auth-Left in the US likes to call "anti-LGBT."

Such as the Salvation Army and Fellowship of Christian Athletes.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/30/fact-check-chick-fil-a-has-not-resumed-donations-groups-oppose-lgbtq-rights/3244765001/

And to your larger point: you're wrong. The backlash that made headlines for months was Dan Cathy's statements, NOT the donations because almost no one gave a shit. No one cares about mentally ill people (very near 100% of these people who rage about things like this have severe mental illnesses) raging against a privately owned Christian company holding Christian beliefs and their donations to Christian organizations.

Here's the evidence: REEE

You should be more honest, you disingenous Mormon ****wit. Chik-fil-A donates money to organizations that will help Christian parents traffic their children out of the United States, and intern them in labor camps in foreign countries, where they are subjected to psychological and physical abuse in attempt to cure them of homosexuality.

Moreover, I already noted that Cathy made his comments, so the headlines would be about his pretend victimhood, instead of Chik-fil-A's anti-LGBTQ donations.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You should be more honest, you disingenous Mormon ****wit. Chik-fil-A donates money to organizations that will help Christian parents traffic their children out of the United States, and intern them in labor camps in foreign countries, where they are subjected to psychological and physical abuse in attempt to cure them of homosexuality.

Moreover, I already noted that Cathy made his comments, so the headlines would be about his pretend victimhood, instead of Chik-fil-A's anti-LGBTQ donations.

Thanks for clearing up the chik fil a thing.

Even if it weren't for their religious horse shit, Chik-Fil-A is extremely overrated.

why would anyone eat there or at kfc when there's popeyes

I used to love Popeyes, but since Burger King bought them they've gone down hill. Still better than Chik fil a or KFC but not as good as they were like 5 years ago.

I didn't know about that. I guess that means popeyes will continue to fall into decline until eventually their food is inedible...just like burger king