Another bunch of morons hitting the mule when they should be targeting the rider instead.

If they got rid of PACs and SPACs, or limited the amounts that can be funneled through them to some small amount, the problem Dow so "nobly" targets wouldn't exist in the first place.

So true. Censorship is absolutely unthinkable in Germany today.

Just as it is absolutely unthinkable that the government encourages people to snitch on their neighbours.

State of Deception: The Power of Nazi Propaganda

https://www.un.org/en/holocaustremem...Propaganda.pdf

Canceling Hawley’s book contract is an example of cancel culture. Obviously it has nothing to do with 230, etc.

…same dictatorship media that brought him to the power now is banning him...media has polarised the society and use sophisticated media tools to influence public opinion to have just two option, right or left...i never liked Trump, he is coward, but now internet moguls proved how powerful they are, if they can ban 'the most powerful man on earth'...no doubt that our society is slipping into wrong direction, only an social earthquake will make to comeback to the normal...

Not sure why you're rolling your eyes. OP clearly focuses on online channels like social media (see the first post), which makes Section 230 a core aspect.

Cancellations aim to destroy someone's entire presence (usually including their economic existence, though that may be difficult WRT Trump). Hawley however doesn't seem to be affected beyond the book contract (AFAICT), which makes this an ordinary breach of contract he'll probably sue for.

Perfect timing-

Now this is what I call crazy: Airbnb to ban guests associated with hate groups, violent activity ahead of US presidential inauguration

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation...n-inauguration

I guess it's OK if a city official tells the following. The price for living in any capital city is protests all the time. Forgoing income of some stays is cheaper than living in a city under unrest, or paying for the cleanup later. Reasonable.

I guess it's also reasonable if AirBnB warns hosts to be careful about whom you rent your place, that's pure common sense.

But, filtering customers because of perceived risk? I guess we're close to the Chinese citizen score than we imagine. AirBnB is literally telling hosts you cannot do business with X person because even if you want to I don't approve. Even though the risk is 100% on the host side. Please don't give money anymore to AirBnB.

Exactly this. No-one could have said it any better.

Wise!

It's also a risk to the rep of AirBnB. Again, private company, free to decide how it operates.

"Airbnb is reviewing reservations in the Washington area ahead of next week’s presidential inauguration and will bar any guests associated with hate groups or violent activity"

this new policy is only in the DC area leading up to the inauguration, it's not a worldwide policy. also i don't see this as any different fm the noflylist from the airlines.

But it's CENSORSHIP and folk don't LIKES it. It makes them sad that they can't behave like total arseholes, get caught, and then continue as they are. Honestly.

In our world people do stupid things on vacation sites. Hotels don't care if you have problems with law enforcement outside the hotel. Inside the hotel, they're tolerant to the point of welcome you again if there's no violent crime and you pay for the damages.

The only risk I see for AirBnB in being proactive is that they're teaching us that companies are liable for what their customers do. Why are they so eager to have a new liability that has not existed before? A few months down the road football fans will riot in any given city around the world and fingers will be ready to blame AirBnB for not banning them.

In the end, it doesn't matter, I just love hotels

AirBnB aren't a hotel. They're an accommodation intermediary /facilitating site. I imagine there will be plenty of hotels with similar policies following the capitol hill riot.

They are liable - someone hacks your AirBnB account, they sort it.

The problem I see is that there is no control on such lists maintained by private companies.

Just imagine that there is a second RufusB in the US, who happens to be a hardcore Trump supporter and your records get mixed up somehow. Good luck solving such a situation.

Here we go, this is why Facebook and Twitter's share price has tanked. They're now going to find out that actions have consequences. I wonder if they'll enjoy the regulatory red tape that's heading their way?

‘No longer acceptable’ for platforms to take key decisions alone, EU Commission says

https://www.euractiv.com/section/dig...mmission-says/

What lists? An AirBnB list? A half competent paper pusher could sort the issue. It's a non problem, unless you're suggesting full-blown identity theft which is, of course, a whole different fishkettle. Same name does not equal same person.

I guess it's dependent on how AirBNB are getting their info. If it's from legal channels, then lots of places will have access. No issue.

Folk just don't like being told they can't use something. It's like any end user agreement: breach the terms, no more right to access.

I would generally say any private company has the right to operate as it likes, along with the responsibility to live with the consequences.

That's how it should be.

But then there was that court ruling about a wedding cake for a gay couple.

Seems it is also linked to airbnb hosts themselves wanting to protect themselves and prevent any potential safety issues to their neighbourhoods. makes sense as many probably hosted protestors and made that mistake during last week's riots.

Mayor Bowser requests more resources, and residents ask each other not to rent their homes.
"D.C. residents are also readying for the return of extremists. The hashtag #DontRentDC is trending on Twitter, as residents ask short-term rental hosts to keep their properties vacant this weekend through the end of inaugural activities. Richard Bianco, a D.C. attorney who primarily represents small landlords, is among those advising local hosts against booking.

“Don’t make a decision that is high risk, low reward,” says Bianco. “You’re potentially exchanging getting a couple of hundred bucks for your Airbnb over the course of a few days during the inauguration. And you’re potentially putting your neighbors at risk, your neighborhood at risk, by renting to people who intend to do harm.”

Forget about second Rufus, what about someone who is not right wing but gets labelled right wing? If someone is on a police watch list, then fine otherwise.....