I disagree with this in the context of their argument. If you own a business, you have the right to make "moral code" decisions about how your business operates. In the same manner that individuals who dislike big oil don't have to purchase Exxon stock (even though they might profit from it), business owners don't have to pander to clients that operate in a market they despise. Writing it off as some grander definition of refereeing the world's "moral code" is just a convenient boogeyman to hide behind.
The simple fact is that Shopify, as a business, supports Breitbart. This article presents an inflated sense of importance of their role in policing the world.
> To kick off a merchant is to censor ideas and interfere with the free exchange of products at the core of commerce. When we kick off a merchant, we’re asserting our own moral code as the superior one. But who gets to define that moral code? Where would it begin and end? Who gets to decide what can be sold and what can’t? If we start blocking out voices, we would fall short of our goals as a company to make commerce better for everyone. Instead, we would have a biased and diminished platform.
The simple fact is that Shopify, as a business, supports Breitbart. This article presents an inflated sense of importance of their role in policing the world.
> To kick off a merchant is to censor ideas and interfere with the free exchange of products at the core of commerce. When we kick off a merchant, we’re asserting our own moral code as the superior one. But who gets to define that moral code? Where would it begin and end? Who gets to decide what can be sold and what can’t? If we start blocking out voices, we would fall short of our goals as a company to make commerce better for everyone. Instead, we would have a biased and diminished platform.