Free speech is a right, and something that the government must allow. People and companies have no imperative to provide the same freedom on platforms they control.<p>While I respect the decision to remain neutral, I have more respect for companies that say no to hate on their platforms. There is no requirement for them to provide a platform for it, and I think it's courageous for companies to have human morals, too many don't.
This is well said:<p>> On November 8th, the day of the US election, the whole world got more black and white. People in the center have been called upon to choose sides. In a way, my position is an appeal to preserve some of the gray in the world. All solutions necessarily have to come from the middle ground. No progress happens when ideas are censored and everyone sorts into one of two camps.
It is just sad that they actually wrote a post about that. As long as it is not clearly illegal stuff Breitbart should be able to sell their merch no matter what idiotic positions they might have. That should not be something to brag about but standard business practice, even for Silicon Valley.
since when is breitbart equivalent to hate speech? has anyone here even read it? I have, and it looks like it's just a bunch of news that would be interesting to conservative types. I see no evidence of "hate speech".<p>are you sure that this isn't just left wing propaganda trying to reduce the influence of conservatives? don't forget, all of this is just a simple power struggle, and we're the pawns.
I remember watching the media report on Donald Trump's campaign speeches and debates late 2015. It seemed crazy, how could he say all those things! Why were the minorities getting beaten up at the rallies!<p>I became interested and downloaded a lot of them and proceeded to watch. There was nothing there! Everything he said seemed to be straight out of 90s/early 2000s policies and campaign promises. Some dude spat on another dudes face and got punched.<p>Now I'm wondering if I should read what is on Breitbart and Daily Stormer.
In yesteryears, utilities were the domain of the government. However, big internet companies are the utilities of today. Increased reliance on their services makes them as powerful, or sometimes even more, than the government.<p>In this new world, companies need to recognize the importance of free speech when it's within their right to control the same. I laud shopify for acknowledging their power and place in the e-commerce world, and for doing the right thing.<p>If corporations are the new government, then they should live by Othello's saying - "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It"
Personally I think the deeper reason they don't kick Breitbart off is because they can't be seen to be vulnerable to pressure from activist campaigns. If they kick off Breitbart, it sets a precedent for the next time an internet shitstorm gets whipped up over a controversial organization.
E-commerce is easy.<p>If it's not illegal or doesn't fit into one of a few categories that cause legal headaches for the platform (porn, guns, etc) you can sell it. If people don't like it they can just not buy it.<p>If you hate the presence of a particular seller so much then don't go to the flea market.
I disagree with this in the context of their argument. If you own a business, you have the right to make "moral code" decisions about how your business operates. In the same manner that individuals who dislike big oil don't have to purchase Exxon stock (even though they might profit from it), business owners don't have to pander to clients that operate in a market they despise. Writing it off as some grander definition of refereeing the world's "moral code" is just a convenient boogeyman to hide behind.<p>The simple fact is that Shopify, as a business, supports Breitbart. This article presents an inflated sense of importance of their role in policing the world.<p>> To kick off a merchant is to censor ideas and interfere with the free exchange of products at the core of commerce. When we kick off a merchant, we’re asserting our own moral code as the superior one. But who gets to define that moral code? Where would it begin and end? Who gets to decide what can be sold and what can’t? If we start blocking out voices, we would fall short of our goals as a company to make commerce better for everyone. Instead, we would have a biased and diminished platform.
Not sure I agree with their position.<p>Whether you see it as Breitbart paying them, or Shopify paying Breitbart; both are profiting by the presence of the other party.<p>I guess it would take other major clients to start leaving the service to make them change their minds. So if you wanted to pressure Shopify, petition the other clients.
They frame it as "imposition of morality" though the issue is broader than that, i.e. Breitbart's tendency to incitement and spreading disinformation.<p>Crying "free speech" over issues of incitement or violence is the bread-and-butter of the alt-right, and I'm deeply curious as to why Shopify decided to employ that tactic.<p>> In a way, my position is an appeal to preserve some of the gray in the world. All solutions necessarily have to come from the middle ground.<p>This is bankrupt, morally and intellectually.
Yet another guy who thinks he's a government entity. Refusing to do business with someone isn't censorship, _it's speech_. No-one's campaigning to remove Breitbart's license to do business, they're just saying Shopify shouldn't be doing business with them.<p>If a guy says offensive stuff in a bar and keeps starting fights, sooner or later you'll have two groups of people. The ones who don't want to hang around with him any more, and the ones who are okay with his behaviour.<p>All of which, frankly, is pretty much covered by the obvious XKCD comic.<p>And yeah, there's plenty of grey in the world. But I'll let you in on a secret: even the grey stuff doesn't like Breitbart.