Shal, I appreciate your calm and reasonable comments, recognize that you aren't responsible for the policy, and are trying to be fair. But I must respectfully disagree with much of what you said.
First of all, obviously this policy IS based on personal beliefs. People's political identification depends on their own personal beliefs. People join "causes" because of their personal beliefs. Additionally, the statement on the pricing page refers to the "immoral policies" of one political group. That is a personal belief expressing a judgment of condemnation against the many people who don't share that belief. It also offers a privilege to people who share that belief while denying it to others who do not.
Referring to a group's beliefs as "immoral" may not be "hate speech" in a legal sense, but is at least an expression of intolerance and bigotry against that group. This is not a "stretch." The policy statement impugns the morality of an entire group of people while assuming the superiority of a differing group.?
Granted, this policy doesn't deny service to members of? a particular group. They can still ride the groups.io bus. They just have to pay for their tickets while members of the assumed "morally superior" group get to ride for free..?
The argument that only a tiny fraction of people might feel discriminated against by this policy is both patronizingly facile and grossly inaccurate. It's like saying that it's no big deal to discriminate against a certain ethnic group because they are only a small fraction of the population anyway. Also, the implication that only a tiny fraction of people would disagree with the policy is just factually wrong. The people who would disagree with the policy happen to constitute the current ruling majority political party of the United States, which is supported by approximately half of the people in this very large country. The precise numbers are debatable, but unquestionably millions of people would in principle find this policy offensive and objectionable if it became publicly known to them.
Facebook's loss of $118B reported yesterday would seem to counter the suggestion that politicization of social media services might be a profitable business practice. One could argue that was mostly due to privacy issues, but the subject? of political bias was also prominent in the public conversation about Facebook's policies and was a significant factor.
I don't think that I have a loss of perspective. I believe that I am putting the policy into a perspective which the groups.io owner may not recognize or respect.The loss then is not mine, but his.
[mod note: and so this topic ends as I somewhat thought it would. In an intractable debate on subjects that have nothing to do with helping users run their groups.]
