Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 8678569" data-attributes="member: 8461">It's not a question of "treating them nicely," but rather a question of whether or not it's okay to inflict tangible economic harm on someone because they've expressed an opinion that you find odious, particularly when the entity inflicting said harm has much more economic heft than the person they're punishing.As much as it might offend conservative and libertarian ideologies, businesses whose degree of influence over the market(s) they cater to – at least once they hit a certain outsized threshold (which can, admittedly, be very hard to delineate) – do (in my opinion) have an obligation to serve the public interest, at least in some regard, rather than only themselves and their stakeholders, which means not being able to cut off access for individuals whom they personally disapprove of.As I noted before, the scale might be different, but the underlying reasoning is the same. "They provoked us" is not an excuse for causing harm, at least when the provocation is "said stuff we don't like" (outside of very specific exceptions such as explicit threats of physical violence, gross violations of personal privacy such as doxxing, etc.). That's true regardless of the level of provocation/retaliation involved, or whether or not you find the original statement(s) provocative yourself.</blockquote>