Posted on 01/15/2020 6:13:52 AM PST by karpov
Email marketing service Mailchimp has terminated the account of Stefan Molyneux, host of the philosophy show Freedomain, after a complaint from Nandini Jammi, co-founder of activist group Sleeping Giants.
Mailchimp appears to have made the decision largely based on this complaint from Jammi which alleges that Molyneux is a white nationalist who promotes eugenics and race science. Molyneux denied these allegations but Mailchimp decided to terminate his account anyway and thanked Jammi for “bringing this to our attention.”
Some existing customers of Mailchimp are shocked that the company appears to terminate its customers’ accounts based on as little as a single complaint.
“Interesting, my company uses Mailchimp. As Director of IT, I cannot allow us doing business with a company that will just terminate accounts because of the political screeching of some nobody on Twittter. Good luck!” said one Twitter user.
Another Twitter user added that it’s “time for everyone to get rid of mailchimp if it’s that easy for someone to get an account terminated.”
Popular YouTuber Jeremy Hambly from TheQuartering said he has also canceled his Mailchimp account after being a customer for years.
Another Twitter user also criticized Mailchimp for terminating the account and taking the word of a person who uses “bully tactics” to silence those they disagree with – a likely reference to Sleeping Giants’ history of threatening to boycott companies unless they comply with the group’s demands.
Before Molyneux was deplatformed by Mailchimp, Jammi posted a tweet celebrating the impact of Molyneux having his PayPal account terminated.
And now, Jammi is pressuring YouTube to shut his channel down based on more allegations.
(Excerpt) Read more at reclaimthenet.org ...
It’s not a false equivalence at all. You misunderstand. In both cases, the LEFTISTS are deciding who a business’ customers should be.
The only difference is, for the cake shop, it’s OUTSIDE leftist agitators determining who their customers should be. For MailChimp, it’s INSIDE management agitators determining who their customers should be. In BOTH cases, leftists are determining who the business should serve based on politics.
Jim restricts content. Should he be liable for what people post here?
Funny that you call these companies fascist then advocate having the government force them to reflect your political views.
Yes, there is. Big Tech firms like Google and Facebook are so BIG that their refusal to provide service is akin to denying you access to the public square.
Break up big tech as monopolies, create a much more “diverse” marketplace, and you may have an argument.
However, that’s not enough. They have to be prosecuted for shutting down conservative alternatives. They criminally colluded to kill rivals so that they remained dominant.
Example 1: Mastercard, Stripe and Paypal colluding to kill Patreon rivals Subscribestar and Freestarter, because the latter two wouldn’t ban people liberals didn’t like. They killed Freestarter, and Subscribestar caved. That’s criminal collusion by financial and tech firms to shut down businesses that don’t agree with them.
Example 2: the killing of social media startups
Remember Gab.ai? The Twitter rival? Google has a special data mining relationship with Twitter. They also share political views along with other liberal big tech firms. Then they colluded together to kill it. Banning it from Apple and Android (google) app stores. Banning its ads and preventing it from being discussed on social media.
A cake shop not wanting to bake me a cake isn’t an issue because I can go to a dozen other places. The several big tech firms ARE 99% of the market. And we can’t even get the market to create alternatives because Big Tech colludes to kill them - repeatedly.
Break them up as monopolies, prosecute the executives for violation of civil rights and trade policy. THEN we will have true economic and political freedom.
Yes, there is. Big Tech firms like Google and Facebook are so BIG that their refusal to provide service is akin to denying you access to the public square.
Break up big tech as monopolies, create a much more “diverse” marketplace, and you may have an argument.
However, that’s not enough. They have to be prosecuted for shutting down conservative alternatives. They criminally colluded to kill rivals so that they remained dominant.
Example 1: Mastercard, Stripe and Paypal colluding to kill Patreon rivals Subscribestar and Freestarter, because the latter two wouldn’t ban people liberals didn’t like. They killed Freestarter, and Subscribestar caved. That’s criminal collusion by financial and tech firms to shut down businesses that don’t agree with them.
Example 2: the killing of social media startups
Remember Gab.ai? The Twitter rival? Google has a special data mining relationship with Twitter. They also share political views along with other liberal big tech firms. Then they colluded together to kill it. Banning it from Apple and Android (google) app stores. Banning its ads and preventing it from being discussed on social media.
A cake shop not wanting to bake me a cake isn’t an issue because I can go to a dozen other places. The several big tech firms ARE 99% of the market. And we can’t even get the market to create alternatives because Big Tech colludes to kill them - repeatedly.
Break them up as monopolies, prosecute the executives for violation of civil rights and trade policy. THEN we will have true economic and political freedom.
Big Tech firms like Google and Facebook are so BIG that their refusal to provide service is akin to denying you access to the public square.
Break up big tech as monopolies, create a much more “diverse” marketplace, and you may have an argument.
However, that’s not enough. They have to be prosecuted for shutting down conservative alternatives. They criminally colluded to kill rivals so that they remained dominant.
Example 1: Mastercard, Stripe and Paypal colluding to kill Patreon rivals Subscribestar and Freestarter, because the latter two wouldn’t ban people liberals didn’t like. They killed Freestarter, and Subscribestar caved. That’s criminal collusion by financial and tech firms to shut down businesses that don’t agree with them.
Example 2: the killing of social media startups
Remember Gab.ai? The Twitter rival? Google has a special data mining relationship with Twitter. They also share political views along with other liberal big tech firms. Then they colluded together to kill it. Banning it from Apple and Android (google) app stores. Banning its ads and preventing it from being discussed on social media.
A cake shop not wanting to bake me a cake isn’t an issue because I can go to a dozen other places. The several big tech firms ARE 99% of the market. And we can’t even get the market to create alternatives because Big Tech colludes to kill them - repeatedly.
Break them up as monopolies, prosecute the executives for violation of civil rights and trade policy. THEN we will have true economic and political freedom.
Yes, there is. Big Tech firms like Google and Facebook are so BIG that their refusal to provide service is akin to denying you access to the public square.
Break up big tech as monopolies, create a much more “diverse” marketplace, and you may have an argument.
However, that’s not enough. They have to be prosecuted for shutting down conservative alternatives. They criminally colluded to kill rivals so that they remained dominant.
Example 1: Mastercard, Stripe and Paypal colluding to kill Patreon rivals Subscribestar and Freestarter, because the latter two wouldn’t ban people liberals didn’t like. They killed Freestarter, and Subscribestar caved. That’s criminal collusion by financial and tech firms to shut down businesses that don’t agree with them.
Example 2: the killing of social media startups
Remember Gab.ai? The Twitter rival? Google has a special data mining relationship with Twitter. They also share political views along with other liberal big tech firms. Then they colluded together to kill it. Banning it from Apple and Android (google) app stores. Banning its ads and preventing it from being discussed on social media.
A cake shop not wanting to bake me a cake isn’t an issue because I can go to a dozen other places. The several big tech firms ARE 99% of the market. And we can’t even get the market to create alternatives because Big Tech colludes to kill them - repeatedly.
Break them up as monopolies, prosecute the executives for violation of civil rights and trade policy. THEN we will have true economic and political freedom.
We're discussing Mailchimp.
Your points are certainly valid, but they are much broader than the simple point I was trying to make. I’m pointing out the usual leftist hypocrisy where the leftists say is is ok for leftists to decide who their customers are but it is not ok for conservatives to decide who their customers are. It’s as simple as that.
It has nothing to do with scale, monopolies, competitors, etc.
Actually, you're looking at this precisely backwards. I doesn't matter what you think, the baker already has to make the gay wedding cake. Since we're already under that regimen, it is therefore entirely appropriate to tell MailChimp that they have to host Molyneux, if you wish to remain evenhanded. Preemptively surrendering to the Left on this on the basis of fanciful and unworkable libertarian "principles" is a recipe for disaster in the long run.
Well put. That’s a good way to express it.
The constitution does not guarantee a right to wedding cakes. The constitution does guarantee a right to "freedom of speech" and the intent of the founders is clearly that speech should not be censored.
The founders never envisioned anyone but government having the power to censor speech, but again, their intent was that speech be not censored.
Beyond that. Beyond the meaning of the words. Beyond the philosophy of libertarian thought.
If we allow this, we are destroyed.
The baker did win his case at the Supreme Court, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, to the chagrin of leftists.
SCOTUS sided with Masterpiece and said they didn't have to bake the cake. There are other actions against them that are still up in the air.
As I said in my earlier post, it's different when the discrimination is against a protected class, and sexual orientation is protected by the Colorodo anti-discrimination act.
Political viewpoint isn't protected by law anywhere in the US that I know of, and it shouldn't be.
Wait, wait; religious freedom came into the baker case.
Right, and it ran up against the Colorado civil rights laws. That's why it's a special case.
There's no law preventing businesses from discriminating on the basis of political view.
“he/she/it is able to go across the street to another bakery”
You can also just go open a new email account with one of the thousands of email services, though.
It gets more complicated when there is collusion between these companies and, for example, every major online payment processor refuses to work with you.
According to Datanyze, Mailchimp owns 55% of that market.
They are, in fact, a monopoly, and should be treated as such.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.