--
Help: /static/help
More Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Even More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list

At the risk of getting flamed and being called names, here are my thoughts on the question raised in this post.?

In today's world, politics cannot be separated from everyday business.? Seniors get discounts in many businesses as do clergy or uniformed police and military,. Certain classes of organizations don't have to pay taxes, etc.? In recent years, the Supreme court has decided that establishing business practices that favor or disfavor groups of people based on the owner's set of beliefs is valid and is a form of free speech? For example who can and can't order a wedding cake at a bakery or what medical services and products are or or are not covered in employee health plans..?

However, I'm divided on my opinion as to whether or not businesses? should or should not exercise that "right".? On one side, it really smacks of discrimination to say "you can buy my product but you can't".? Or, you get a discount and you don't.? ?More so when you have no control over the metric being used (e.g., skin color, race, nationality, gender, etc.) and less so when you do have a choice (profession, choice of clothing, hair color, political viewpoint, etc).? ?But on the other hand, one could argue that part of living in a village is to look after those who need it (discounts for seniors, or a free meal for a homeless person) or to offer benefits as a way to say "thank you" to a group of people (e.g., discounts for military or police).? So, with the Groups.IO question, one side of me says "Slippery Slope" and not a good idea, and the other side says "very good to support a cause you believe in".? ?

All things considered though,? I think I'm okay with the discount on Groups.IO.? ?And, perhaps it should be extended to Charities and Environmental Protection groups as well.??

Well I'm very surprised to see that also.? However, Mark Fletcher owns groups.io (as far as I know) and if he wishes to offer discounts or deals, it's his right to do so.
This message is only on the pricing page it seems so it's unlikely that members will ever see it.

--
Help: /static/help
More Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Even More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list

开云体育

On 2018-07-25 6:17 p.m., Shal Farley wrote:

?That's why this topic terrifies me as a moderator.

+1

often divisive issue such as political beliefs is treacherous.

As a want-to-be consultant, my recommendation would be to _not_ offer
the discount, because it leads to "you knew, or should have known the
content of the group", and as such, you are liable for blah, where
"blah" is something deplorable, despicable, and otherwise abhorrent, in
the eyes of the plaintiff, situations.

If you provide tools that enable the construction or doing of something,
you absolutely do not want to have any inkling of what your clients are
doing with those tools. To have such knowledge gives one more liability
than the client who did the actions.

?Specifically religious beliefs, which I think makes that case qualitatively different

The current trend is to present something as both:
* A Free Speech issue;
* A Religious Rights issue;

Courts do their best to avoid getting involved in religious disputes.

I remember a court case several decades back, where the judge asked at
least once an hour, why it wasn't a simple religious dispute, and as
such, outside the purview of the court. I think it was the point at
which each side was ready to tell the bailiff to arrest both opposing
counsel, and their client, for some variant of theft, did the judge
understand that it really was about who got the money.

There is a reason Masonic Jurisprudence frowns upon getting involved in
civil court.

Insert standard legal disclaimer.

jonathon

--
Help: /static/help
More Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Even More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list

Mary,
There will always be divisiveness.
Mark is a private citizen, entitled to his opinions.
He is also a private businessman
Your choices are to either patronize him or not.
We all have those choices, including Mark.
--

Bob Bellizzi

One more wrinkle to all of this.? I believe the ".IO" domain refers to "British Indian Ocean Territory".? ?So, I assume that Mark, or at least this service, is not based in the USA and that Groups.IO is designed for global use (maybe targeted to the US, but global nonetheless.? So, one has to consider that the "rules" or established principles?in other countries may not align with those in the USA.? So, I guess what I'm saying is that what our Supreme Court has or will say is only one voice in a global community of many voices.

However, I do agree with the comments that it is really up to Mark.? If his decision goes against the principles of some group owners they can certainly choose to move to a different service.? ?For example, I have chosen not to do business with some companies whose political stance is contrary to mine and who have brought those views to their business practices.? But that's just me.

Dan


[mod note: Groups.io is U.S. based and is intended for global use.]

--
Help: /static/help
More Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Even More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list

On 7/26/2018 1:22 PM, Shal Farley wrote:

?Mark resides in California, the groups.io
<> servers are rented from linode
<>, a company headquartered in Philidelphia.
Groups.io also rents cloud storage from Amazon.

The .io domain <> registrar does not
restrict its customers to just British citizens/organizations.
?
?Shal?

Groups.io Inc is a US company registered in Delaware and with offices in
California. For further (minimal) details, go to the search page on the
California Secretary of State's website, search by Entity Number, and
enter C3710824.



--
Bill

As a free service, groups.io can advocate any political cause that it wants to and if the people who use the service don't like it they obviously can go elsewhere.

However, it seems like a very poor business decision to purposefully drive away current and potential future customers.

From conversations with other group owners I know that they will be taking their groups elsewhere if this offensive discriminatory policy is not retracted.

I also suspect that this blatant bias for and against certain users based on their political beliefs is going to soon become a viral hot topic on social media. People who have large audiences in social media? may be advising others to avoid, move away from, or otherwise boycott groups.io because of this discriminatory policy.

Facebook has recently received a lot of bad publicity due to it's activities which were objectionable to its users. It is puzzling why groups.io would seek the same limelight so recently in the wake of the Facebook experience?

I understand that the moderators of this Group Moderators Forum are not responsible for and have no control over the policies of the groups.io owner. But it does state on the home page of this forum that "We discuss our experiences as Owners and Moderators"?and that is what I am doing here. This discriminatory policy of groups.io? for and against certain of its users based on their political beliefs creates a very unpleasant experience for those group owners who are discriminated against by that policy.
?

Oh, members are definitely going to see it. Social media way beyond groups.io is going to see it. One does not deliberately discriminate against a large and active segment of the population without them seeing it.

Daniel,

I also suspect that this blatant bias for and against certain users
based on their political beliefs is going to soon become a viral hot
topic on social media.

Keep in mind that Groups.io is not turning anyone away. All that has happened is that groups of a certain nature are offered a free upgrade to Premium.

Some may consider it a distinction without a difference, and I'm sure many will, but I don't think offering a discount to a certain class of groups constitutes discrimination against all the others. I certainly don't feel that GMF or my PTA group or my classmate groups, all being non-political, are being discriminated against.

People who have large audiences in social media may be advising others
to avoid, move away from, or otherwise boycott groups.io because of
this discriminatory policy.

People have to make their own decisions, obviously. They should consider whether:

a) the apparent fact that Mark Fletcher holds a political view that they disagree with; or
b) the fact that some groups were offered an upgrade that was not offered to them;

is sufficient cause for them to move to another service, one which likely provides inferior features and support for them and their group members.

Shal


--
Help: /static/help
More Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Even More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list

It's not illegal discrimination, but It is plainly discrimination nonetheless: giving a preference to some group of people while denying it to others based on some personal characteristic which you happen to share with the group you give preference to.

Regardless of the discrimination issue, it's an extremely stupid business decision. Consider Ford Motor Company saying that they are going to give free cars to anyone who is a registered Democrat. Obviously then Ford is not going to make any money selling cars to Democrats since they are giving them to them for free instead. And how many Republicans are going to buy a Ford once they hear about this?

?And finally, it is a violation of group.io's own Terms Of Service / User Conduct section 6 (vi) that states groups.io must not be used in any way which is? "hateful racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable."
/static/tos

Or is that just a double standard which applies only to the groups.io users but not to the owner?

Daniel,

This is why I hate this topic. Politics causes some people to lose all perspective.

It's not illegal discrimination, but It is plainly discrimination
nonetheless: giving a preference to some group of people while denying
it to others based on some personal characteristic ...

Keep this clearly in mind: the only people being offered a free upgrade are those who run lists (groups) in service of a particular cause. Yes, that is technically discrimination. But no, it is not based on anyone's personal characteristics or beliefs.

I imagine that many members of my PTA and my classmate groups would agree with that cause, while another portion would hold the diametrically opposed view. None of them are being discriminated for or against. I would say likewise for the membership of GMF. It is only the tiny fraction of the membership, if any, which might run a group aligned with or against that particular issue who might have a reason to feel discriminated for or against.

For the rest of us, it is of no practical importance, though it may be of philosophical importance to some.

Regardless of the discrimination issue, it's an extremely stupid
business decision.

I don't know about "extremely stupid", but I do think it was an unwise one.

But I could be wrong. In recent years social media campaigns to punish companies for taking a political or moral stand have often as not backfired when supporters of that stand rally round the company. A social media campaign centered on Groups.io, even in opposition, might be a level of marketing Groups.io could never hope to achieve otherwise. That's an old observation by the way, which probably predates P. T. Barnum:


But no, I am NOT in any way shape or form insinuating that Mark is that cynical.

And finally, it is a violation of group.io's own Terms Of Service /
User Conduct section 6 (vi) that states groups.io must not be used in
any way which is "hateful racially, ethnically or otherwise
objectionable."

This is what I mean about the loss of perspective. To get there you had to stretch "otherwise objectionable" way beyond the context of that sentence (hate speech).
Shal



--
Help: /static/help
More Help: /g/GroupManagersForum/wiki
Even More Help: Search button at the top of Messages list