174
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by zinklog@lemmy.fmhy.ml to c/tech@lemmy.fmhy.ml
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] animist@lemmy.one 26 points 1 year ago

I'm not American, does your country consider this anti-competitive behavior?

[-] Revezd@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Wasn’t there just a case where they ruled that a homophobic bunch can refuse services to LGBTQI+ members? If so, this might fall under the same freedom of business. I however think it’s really sad (especially in the above described case).

[-] WalrusDragonOnABike@kbin.social 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

But what if some of the judges have a personal dislike of Twitter? Would it matter who bribed Thomas more?

[-] zalack@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

I'm pretty sure that ruling specifically relied on the denial of service being an expression of religious belief, which would be a hard sell here.

(Also, not endorsing the ruling, that's just my understanding of it).

[-] WookieMunster@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Wouldn’t that be a bit of a stretch? In the first case they’re refusing patrons while Twitter is blocking a whole service/platform

load more comments (6 replies)
this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2023
174 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

31 readers
1 users here now

Talk about anything tech related!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS