There is a lot going on in this field of law. First, the historic concept is called “common carrier.” Someone with such a designation is prohibited from unreasonably discriminating among customers. That has a historically determined meaning -- they can charge differently in ways that relate to their underlying cost, risk, or value being delivered. But not to unrelated things.
Second there are a host of proposed laws prohibiting banks and other financial institutions from making decisions about financial support to businesses based on ESG scores or opinions.
Third, there are a host of proposed laws prohibiting use of social credit scores in a variety of business decisions.
Both the second and third points also have variations that are much more extensive and cover a person’s affiliations or opinions.
There are problems with this. For example, if and employer doesn’t want to hire Klan members, it seems like that ought to be OK. But what about the employer who doesn’t want to hire Democrats or Methodists? And how do we distinguish a social credit score from a real credit score when looking at a bank’s lending decisions? And for lending to businesses, how do we distinguish between consideration of (a) risks arising directly from global warming, like investing in construction on beachfronts, (b) risks arising from litigation and regulatory exposure of alleged polluters like oil companies, and (c) an ESG score?
Apart from figuring out how to write these laws, their proponents need to make sure that they provide a private right of action for statutory damages and attorneys’s fees. That will turn the plaintiffs lawyers loose.
I put it to you that Twitter, AirBnB, etc are not public squares but private land more akin to shopping malls.
But as Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) tells us, individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers.
"Free speech and free association in our new digital malls" might not be the most catchy phrase ever, but it has legal precedent.
If it has an HR department, its effectively a government agency.
It's fine to let Joe's fish shack do whatever it wants, but once decision making it being made by a committee of mediocre mid level beuracrats with no skin in the game, its fine to put common sense guardrails on the outcome.
The full Libertarian position would be any business could choose not to provide services for any reason. An airline could cancel your reservation over an insensitive Tweet, a restaurant owner could refuse to seat you etc. In a world with intense competition in all sectors, this might work. You could simply choose other places to do business. Realistically though that's difficult.
I don't really want to live in a world where I have to review every purchase decision I make through the lens of the companies political opinions.
Picturing the 19 year old libertarian neckbeard in front of his computer made me laugh quite a bit :D I generally like the Austrians but praxeology is nonsensical gibberish^^
Having alternatives doesn’t have to mean that it competes with conglomerates. It might be more useful to build smaller, local alternatives. Something akin to having a small community bank instead of Chase. Or going to smaller markets for organic food and avoiding supermarkets.
You always talk in this very polished and articulated way, 0 background noise too i have too say i've read listened to almost all of your content, and while i don't follow you or "get on" with everything you've explored and proposed and in this your project, i acknowladge you are a smart, polite chap i've learned from all you've done, from one man to another matthew may you achieve more success in the years to come
I don’t know about in the UK as the law differs. The baker who refused to make the cake won his Supreme Court case against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. They said the state was hostile to his religion giving other protected classes more protection. But being associated with an E-Celebrity who mostly does political commentary and social issues is probably not protected by civil rights legislation. They would have the okay to cut them for what ever reason as long as it’s not race, sex, creed, sexual orientation, or who you specifically voted for, they’d probably argue “oh, she does hate speech, & they are so close to her, ya da ya da & so forth.” I’d probably just ride it out in a hotel. You shouldn’t give your business to people who don’t want it. People put cameras in Air B&Bs. It’s pretty bad for the real estate market too. People buying houses to rent them takes away from people buying houses to live in them. The world will always be the same and you’ll never change it. Eventually the house of cards will collapse (mass foreclosures, yesterday I read news that apparently half the people who make 100k are living check to check, just loans up the wazoo.) A more organic market will emerge hopefully in reaction to the mistakes we’ve made. Jails are filling up and people abuse the system, what would be the pragmatic approach? Raise our children to be better people? Equal opportunity to be a fool playing a fools game in the age of decadence, nay I say tis’ better to live as Diogenes. Take a whizz on the next air B&B you see.
Have a question, why is freedom of speech a critical, deterministic, fulcrum point?
I, personally think it matters much less than you think, as evidenced by most people not caring.
Like, I want you to fill this in
If no freedom of speech, then....
_________________________
I'm into Asian history and I'm fine with collectivism or authoritarian ways. Freedom of speech matters in specific ways that were important in the past, say Mokyr's "Republic of Letters" thesis on development. A marginal reduction in the freedom of speech in our current world bothers mostly those on the right. I could care less and you all have not given evidence for the conclusion to the premise. It's what you learned in 11th grade of High School, but is it even true? I feel if you do some kind of regression discontinuity on states/counties that banned more speech, you would find no effect. Willing to change my mind, but think it matter very little. Core belief for a lot though.
There is a lot going on in this field of law. First, the historic concept is called “common carrier.” Someone with such a designation is prohibited from unreasonably discriminating among customers. That has a historically determined meaning -- they can charge differently in ways that relate to their underlying cost, risk, or value being delivered. But not to unrelated things.
Second there are a host of proposed laws prohibiting banks and other financial institutions from making decisions about financial support to businesses based on ESG scores or opinions.
Third, there are a host of proposed laws prohibiting use of social credit scores in a variety of business decisions.
Both the second and third points also have variations that are much more extensive and cover a person’s affiliations or opinions.
There are problems with this. For example, if and employer doesn’t want to hire Klan members, it seems like that ought to be OK. But what about the employer who doesn’t want to hire Democrats or Methodists? And how do we distinguish a social credit score from a real credit score when looking at a bank’s lending decisions? And for lending to businesses, how do we distinguish between consideration of (a) risks arising directly from global warming, like investing in construction on beachfronts, (b) risks arising from litigation and regulatory exposure of alleged polluters like oil companies, and (c) an ESG score?
Apart from figuring out how to write these laws, their proponents need to make sure that they provide a private right of action for statutory damages and attorneys’s fees. That will turn the plaintiffs lawyers loose.
I put it to you that Twitter, AirBnB, etc are not public squares but private land more akin to shopping malls.
But as Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 (1980) tells us, individuals may peacefully exercise their right to free speech in parts of private shopping centers, subject to reasonable regulations adopted by the shopping centers.
"Free speech and free association in our new digital malls" might not be the most catchy phrase ever, but it has legal precedent.
If it has an HR department, its effectively a government agency.
It's fine to let Joe's fish shack do whatever it wants, but once decision making it being made by a committee of mediocre mid level beuracrats with no skin in the game, its fine to put common sense guardrails on the outcome.
It seems to me if we have a baker that will potentially be forced to bake a cake celebrating a gender transition (https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-01-27/colorado-baker-loses-appeal-transgender-birthday-cake) - the rule should hold that businesses can't arbitrarily deny services to people based on their political affiliations.
The full Libertarian position would be any business could choose not to provide services for any reason. An airline could cancel your reservation over an insensitive Tweet, a restaurant owner could refuse to seat you etc. In a world with intense competition in all sectors, this might work. You could simply choose other places to do business. Realistically though that's difficult.
I don't really want to live in a world where I have to review every purchase decision I make through the lens of the companies political opinions.
Picturing the 19 year old libertarian neckbeard in front of his computer made me laugh quite a bit :D I generally like the Austrians but praxeology is nonsensical gibberish^^
Having alternatives doesn’t have to mean that it competes with conglomerates. It might be more useful to build smaller, local alternatives. Something akin to having a small community bank instead of Chase. Or going to smaller markets for organic food and avoiding supermarkets.
You always talk in this very polished and articulated way, 0 background noise too i have too say i've read listened to almost all of your content, and while i don't follow you or "get on" with everything you've explored and proposed and in this your project, i acknowladge you are a smart, polite chap i've learned from all you've done, from one man to another matthew may you achieve more success in the years to come
I don’t know about in the UK as the law differs. The baker who refused to make the cake won his Supreme Court case against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. They said the state was hostile to his religion giving other protected classes more protection. But being associated with an E-Celebrity who mostly does political commentary and social issues is probably not protected by civil rights legislation. They would have the okay to cut them for what ever reason as long as it’s not race, sex, creed, sexual orientation, or who you specifically voted for, they’d probably argue “oh, she does hate speech, & they are so close to her, ya da ya da & so forth.” I’d probably just ride it out in a hotel. You shouldn’t give your business to people who don’t want it. People put cameras in Air B&Bs. It’s pretty bad for the real estate market too. People buying houses to rent them takes away from people buying houses to live in them. The world will always be the same and you’ll never change it. Eventually the house of cards will collapse (mass foreclosures, yesterday I read news that apparently half the people who make 100k are living check to check, just loans up the wazoo.) A more organic market will emerge hopefully in reaction to the mistakes we’ve made. Jails are filling up and people abuse the system, what would be the pragmatic approach? Raise our children to be better people? Equal opportunity to be a fool playing a fools game in the age of decadence, nay I say tis’ better to live as Diogenes. Take a whizz on the next air B&B you see.
Have a question, why is freedom of speech a critical, deterministic, fulcrum point?
I, personally think it matters much less than you think, as evidenced by most people not caring.
Like, I want you to fill this in
If no freedom of speech, then....
_________________________
I'm into Asian history and I'm fine with collectivism or authoritarian ways. Freedom of speech matters in specific ways that were important in the past, say Mokyr's "Republic of Letters" thesis on development. A marginal reduction in the freedom of speech in our current world bothers mostly those on the right. I could care less and you all have not given evidence for the conclusion to the premise. It's what you learned in 11th grade of High School, but is it even true? I feel if you do some kind of regression discontinuity on states/counties that banned more speech, you would find no effect. Willing to change my mind, but think it matter very little. Core belief for a lot though.