No, a judge agreed with Meta’s objections and shut the lawsuit down.
Why would Tate, or anybody else, be owed access to their platform. Imagine if people sued every time a service banned you, a restaurant kicked you out, etc…
Tate’s just another example of what the rightwing mean by “free speech”-- they mean forced platforming for them, and suppression of anyone disagreeing.
In the EU, the DSA gives people pretty extensive rights to challenge such bans (and other moderation decisions), but only if the platform is sufficiently large.
but only if the platform is sufficiently large
hm, that sounds sensible actually
This is just what these far right overgrown toddlers do. They literally are not capable of understanding anything that isn’t about them.
I’d argue that there are cases when people’s access to a service should be legally upheld.
Say, you bought an iPhone, Apple Watch, the whole Apple entourage. Then your account gets flagged and blocked for something stupid - and bam, the hardware you just spent a few thousand dollars on is unusable, any apps/services you bought via the Apple account are inaccessible, you lost your notes, contacts, emails, cloud storage, and so on.
With Google or Samsung it’s slightly less problematic as you don’t HAVE to use their service accounts to use your hardware. But it is an outstanding issue where these companies have become de facto monopolies in certain market segments and can’t be avoided to deal with - and it’s up to their whims if you get to use certain services.
There’s been actually a number of instances where this kind of issue landed near me. I’m an android engineer and had TWO previous employers who’s got their Play Store accounts suspended because a developer that worked in relation with those accounts 5-7-10 years ago, ended up having their account hacked then promptly suspended once it was used for fraud - and the employer’s account was “an associated account” thus it got the suspension too.
There’s very little oversight over the operation of these companies, again, they do as they wish, if a slightly higher-up manager has a personal beef with you, you can find yourself banned from their services, causing financial and professional damage and so on. So no, I disagree, at times, companies do need to be legally forced to provide their services.
Mind you, the Taint case is not such a time.
It’s much more complicated than that. Social media platforms have a TOS that binds them just as much as the user. It’s literally just a contract.
The social media company also has much more limited rights to terminate such a contract than the user. At least that’s the case in countries with any consumer protection.
That’s how YouTubers at least in Germany have successfully forced YouTube to reinstate their channel. YouTube failed to prove a violation of their TOS, therefore the contract termination was null and void, therefore the contract is still valid.
There is no contract when you have entered a restaurant. After you ordered your food, there is a contract and you cannot be kicked out for arbitrary reasons anymore. If you are kicked out for no reason, you can sue for damages (but you cannot force the restaurant to enter any new contracts with you, e.g. another meal).
Social media platforms have a TOS that binds them just as much as the user.
They can change their TOS at any time, and frequently do so, so no, they are not bound “just as much as the user.”
It’s literally just a contract.
An unconscionable one, at best, considering the vast power disparity between a large social media site and any user. Clickthrough contracts should be banned outright. There’s no way to negotiate. It’s “my way or the highway.”
Changing the TOS is explicitly allowed. You can refuse to accept the changes but then the company has the right to end their relationship with you (i.e. terminate your account).
There are also strict limits. Something like: “Your account may be terminated for any unspecified reason” is illegal, I’m pretty sure.
And the recent DSA of the EU has further limited social media company’s rights to terminate accounts. I believe they must provide a way to fight terminations and listen to your arguments. Other countries may have similar laws but I cannot speak for them.
Banning clickthrough contracts would genuinely break large parts of the internet though. No more online purchases for one, including anything from Steam to Amazon.
I mean, when a gay couple sued about not getting their wedding cake you guys had the exact opposite response.
I’m of the opinion nobody can force you to provide service like a slave
how does it feel to be a sniveling cuckold of men using poor useful idiots like you to enrich themselves more than anyone in human history? your homophobia is so useful to them. hope you figure it out one day, buddy!
It doesn’t matter what reason someone has to just refuse to do something. The government should not force someone under threat of violence to do work.
I can privately boycott businesses that I disagree with, give them bad reviews, etc.
We actually decided in like the 50s or 60s that it does matter.
As someone else already mentioned, sex traffickers aren’t a protected class.
The government should not force someone under threat of violence to do work.
So if there’s a feedlot set up next door to your house, the government shouldn’t proactively require them not to dump the pig slurry into your backyard? Sure, maybe you can sue, but they’re thousands of times richer than you, and as the suit goes through the courts, you’re still buried in pig shit.
How about every credit card company refusing to deal with you because, for example, you’re a libertarian? Just fine, start your own bank? And how about a water company or some other lifeline utility?
It’s entirely reasonable for governments to impose standards on business. Everywhere and every time that has not happened, businesses have committed abuses. Even Adam Smith (the real one, not the modern crackpot who stole his name) knew that. “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the publick, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”
You have property rights, your backyard is your property.
I can’t force a credit card company to do business with me. They only do it because they calculated it’s worth their while.
Regardless of any ethical considerations you may or may not have about the affected group: where does it lead if exclusion reaches a critical mass in a largely privatised society, making it impossible for a significant number of people to acquire necessary goods or services?
What exactly would your ideal world look like, and how would one prevent it from devolving into groups segregating by increasingly precise identity- or ideological markers? How would this affect societies and economies at large, if we fully reject the paradox of unlimited tolerance of intolerance? Have you ever tried discussing this with likeminded people and were they able to offer satisfying solutions that could withstand logical examination without requiring religious or otherwise tribal substitutions?
It means the few businesses who help marginalized groups have a lot more business than the other ones and benefit.
Furthermore, I believe in canceling bigots and spamming their businesses yelp pages. The government doesn’t need to force people to be good, society still exists
Sex traffickers are not a protected class.
Who the fuck are “you guys”? You have no clue what I stand for.
And be careful throwing around monoliths, cause the right and pedophiles/white supremecists/grifters/etc. are one in the same if thats the lens were looking at things through
People on Lemmy, not you in particular
Lemmy didn’t exist when that happened lol
No, but that’s not the first time I’ve talked about it here with other people