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…
This is just what these far right overgrown toddlers do. They literally are not capable of understanding anything that isn’t about them.
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.
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
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
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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
But whattabout…