DTRPG Says 'Don't criticize us or we'll ban you'

[doctorbadwolf]

Huh? You're not prevented from defaming them, you've just had the consequences spelled out. Reading it what it says is that you should come to them first to discuss the problems, not social media.

And if you are saying derogatory/defamatory things about DTRPG then it should not be surprising that they no longer want you as a customer. Try going into any retailer and start shouting about how their service/products is the worst - I'm sure you'll be asked to leave pretty quick.

Exactly this.

Again, I disagree. There are instances where private entities are, indeed, obligated to not regulate the content that they sell based on their personal feelings as to said content.

No, there aren’t.

And this is another issue that quite often gets wrapped up in this: the overstatement of egregiousness and the lessening of criteria by which the label you're using is applied. Posting an anti-choice product, or one that criticizes contemporary progressive politics, does not unto itself warrant what you're saying here.

The fact that you keep trying to reframe literal nazi propaganda as a polite disagreement on particular public policies or something is wildly inappropriate.

When a private entity has gained monopoly power, they are in fact obligated to cease gatekeeping access to a market based solely on whether or not they like the ideology (though it should be noted that neither they, nor you, get to decide what's "valid" or not).

This kind of “free speech” fanatical absolutism is logically equivalent to claiming that it’s um acceptable to punish someone for pulling the fire alarm in a busy hospital.

Not even the government is required to host anyone’s speech. A business is not obligated to help other businesses make profit, by any stretch of the imagination. Walmart isn’t obligated to carry ads for the local grocery store, and DTRPG is not obligated to carry Venger Satanis’ nazi propaganda.

 

[Alzrius]

This here is the crux of this entire back-and-forth argument, in that it is fundamentally correct except in its conclusion. The public interest is best served in not allowing nazis and other bigots on their platform. That this is not self-evident is the biggest problem.

I disagree in the strongest possible terms. Pushing people you disagree with out of the public sphere is ultimately counterproductive, because it hardens opposition and eschews finding ways to actually change minds. "Talking to people you disagree with doesn't work" is an untruth that's unfortunately become all too popular in contemporary discourse, because it's confrontation which doesn't change minds. Engagement does.

These are not the kinds of values that we can allow to act "value-neutral" about. Popper's Paradox covers this

The problem is that this isn't an area where Popper's Paradox applies. "We can't be intolerant of intolerance, since otherwise they'll take away our right to exist" cannot be extended to instances of, say, letting someone else publish a product on a webstore.

 

[Alzrius]

The fact that you keep trying to reframe literal nazi propaganda as a polite disagreement on particular public policies or something is wildly inappropriate.

I don't believe that's an accurate representation of the material in question.

This kind of “free speech” fanatical absolutism is logically equivalent to claiming that it’s um acceptable to punish someone for pulling the fire alarm in a busy hospital.

It's neither fanatical, nor is it absolute. I mentioned in a previous post (I'm sure you read it) that it's not okay to post threats, or doxx people, and that there are limits. But saying "I don't like what you're saying, so you can't say it in an area I control" goes too far when you control the only venue.

Walmart isn’t obligated to carry ads for the local grocery store, and DTRPG is not obligated to carry Venger Satanis’ nazi propaganda.

Leaving aside the disagreement as to the characterization, I believe that they are, for reasons outlined upthread.

 

[Jer]

This here is the crux of this entire back-and-forth argument, in that it is fundamentally correct except in its conclusion. The public interest is best served in not allowing nazis and other bigots on their platform. That this is not self-evident is the biggest problem. These are not the kinds of values that we can allow to act "value-neutral" about. Popper's Paradox covers this, or even better, that story about not allowing nazis in your bar.

This is exactly correct. Tolerance for the bigots leads to them winning, not to all of us getting along. That's the paradox of tolerance in a nutshell and why inclusion tends to be a better approach for keeping Nazis out of your bar than some kind of absolutist stance on "tolerance".

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This here is the crux of this entire back-and-forth argument, in that it is fundamentally correct except in its conclusion. The public interest is best served in not allowing nazis and other bigots on their platform. That this is not self-evident is the biggest problem. These are not the kinds of values that we can allow to act "value-neutral" about. Popper's Paradox covers this, or even better, that story about not allowing nazis in your bar.

I've seen plenty of people try to dismiss these concepts but I've never seen any particularly compelling arguments debunking them

Damn right. And ya know what, when I was a regular at a punk-leaning bar in a bad part of town, and Nazis got kicked out, so did the inevitable patron who yelled that it wasn’t right to kick someone out because they “disagree with your politics”.

Sorry bud, we can kick you out for literally any reason that isn’t a clear case of discrimination as defined by the law, actually.

DTRPG could just start curating content, and they’d not be violating anyone’s freedoms.

 

[Guest 85555]

The problem is that this isn't an area where Popper's Paradox applies. "We can't be intolerant of intolerance, since otherwise they'll take away our right to exist" cannot be extended to instances of, say, letting someone else publish a product on a webstore.

This is a side point, but people should read the entirely of poppers paradox in the context in which it appeared.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

edit: needlessly confrontational.

 

[Alzrius]

No, it doesn't cut them off. It increases the costs of reaching that customer base to what it would be if DTRPG did not exist -- ie, you have to buy ads and get word out and do all the normal things businesses have to do to reach their customers. DTRPG does not have a captured customer base that can only access the market through DTRPG.

Except that they do, in effect, have exactly that. While theoretically those customers can still be accessed elsewhere, that's not the practical impact of what happens if they cut someone off, particularly since smaller publishers lack the resources necessary to make up the difference in scope between themselves and DTRPG.

This claim that DTRPG has completely captured the customer base and the only access to that base is through DTRPG is an extraordinary claim needing some kind of support.

Again, I'll point you to the statements made by a publisher in this same thread, and by another one in a link I provided earlier.

 

[Alzrius]

Welp, I find your position very strongly immoral, to a degree to which I will no longer be interacting with you.

That's certainly your right, though I disagree emphatically and think that your stance will not serve the goals you're trying to achieve.

 

[eyeheartawk]

I disagree in the strongest possible terms. Pushing people you disagree with out of the public sphere is ultimately counterproductive, because it hardens opposition and eschews finding ways to actually change minds. "Talking to people you disagree with doesn't work" is an untruth that's unfortunately become all too popular in contemporary discourse, because it's confrontation which doesn't change minds. Engagement does.

We're not talking about kicking people out of their homes for being a proto-fascist or whatever, we're talking about kicking a dude off a webstore who purposefully made a bad taste and controversial module, with the intent of it causing controversy. When then, that controversy happened and DTRPG pulled it to review it like they would any reported item he went on a cynical, bad faith attack to - presumably - drum up publicity. A company can't say "Hey, that ain't me, chief "?

Also, to engage with your point more broadly, I'm just going to list some places in time, okay?
Weimar Germany
Mussolini's Italy
Pinochet's Chile
Franco's Spain

If only all those people had finger wagged and tsk'd harder everything would have worked out just fine.