2533
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Jul 2023
2533 points (94.0% liked)
Malicious Compliance
20 readers
2 users here now
People conforming to the letter, but not the spirit, of a request. For now, this includes text posts, images, videos and links. Please ensure that the “malicious compliance” aspect is apparent - if you’re making a text post, be sure to explain this part; if it’s an image/video/link, use the “Body” field to elaborate.
======
-
We ENCOURAGE posts about events that happened to you, or someone you know.
-
We ACCEPT (for now) reposts of good malicious compliance stories (from other platforms) which did not happen to you or someone you knew. Please use a [REPOST] tag in such situations.
-
We DO NOT ALLOW fiction, or posts that break site-wide rules.
======
Also check out the following communities:
!fakehistoryporn@lemmy.world !unethicallifeprotips@lemmy.world
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Nothing wrong with this. Their business their choice. Only time will tell if it was a good choice. depending where it is I dont think it will be. I think everyone is tired of the back and forth bs !
Back and forth bs? Please define
Cult 45 with their red hat dunce caps is definitely not tired of the back and forth. They don't give a shit as long as it OwNz ThE dEmZ!!!
I defend free speech, even the shitty speech by bigoted assholes, but violating a person's civil rights is not protected by free speech.
Once you cross the line into preventing someone from doing a thing just because of who they are, that's no longer speech but action. And of course the rights of business owners to serve who they want to is a grey area, but that's what we have the courts for. Unfortunately, the current SCOTUS is so heavily politicized that it seems unable to adjudicate these issues impartially.
Maybe it will. Maybe it won't.
You wouldn't take the effort to comment if you didn't care.