Message from @TheBrsrkr
Discord ID: 603412101960040449
<:xethno:522941537647329280>
Says who? Why isn't a donut shop a platform?
It's the most simple transaction imaginable. Walk in, say 5 donuts, get 5 donuts
Donut shops are occupied by cops 24/7
besides discrimination is not the same thing as disparity
Or to put it another way, isn't a donut shop a bakery?
You are misunderstanding what an open platform is.
I can see the issue with the elaborate artistic wedding cake, but a commodity donut? simple as buying water
that is why 'not open'
I discriminate between hot girls and girls like Luci
Yikes
Should dating sites be able to be gay only or straight only?
basically what I'm getting at is that I think we should lean towards compelling service rather than an absolute right to refuse service. if you are compelled to sell donuts, youtube can be compelled to allow service too
yes
>Girls like Luci
Don't lie ManAnimal, you'd stretch that poon given 3 dollars and half a chance
they should
agreed
but why would i let him tbh
preference is inherently discriminatory
it's fucked up if they allow both
cause if i ever found out a blind date was a trap, i'd punch him immedately in the adam's apple
If a company has a monopoly or accepts govt money it should not be able to refuse service
then piss on him
just for being dishonest
the funny thing is it's illegal to discriminate based on gender but virtually every person on the earth does that when choosing a mate
So you'd suck his dick and kick his ass?
I got no problems going BACK to prison, boi
It's another thing if they told you but you still took them to a backroom.
yep its b.c people are attributing motive to persons personal preferernce in discrimination
well @D3bug_logic even google isn't a monopoly, only 92% of the market right? youtube isn't a monopoly, we have bitchute!
but functionally there is no alternative
yes it isnt a monopoly but it does take govt money
and visa/mastercard are a great example. not monopolies but they act in parallel so you don't really have an alternative
An open platform is like a bulletin board.
Anyone can put up a poster on a bulletin board. The person who actually built the board isn’t responsible for anything that is posted on it. All they did is use some carpentry skills to make a board.
Now, if the board maker decides to put a glass panel over it, and start reviewing what goes up on it, he isn’t operating an open platform. He’s now a publisher. He is now responsible for what people are putting up there.
So, if YouTube wants to be an open platform, great. They can do that. If YouTube wants to be a publisher, that’s fine too. But there are consequences. They’re now liable for everything that is posted on YouTube. *They’ll* be up for all the copyright issues, *they’ll* be responsible for incitement charges.
well it is the banks not the cc companies
google takes gov money for defence projects
who doesn't?
that could still be covered under anti-trust legistation, if you have companies price fixing