451–457 of 457 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All three need to pay the bills, but none of them charges for most of the services offered, so I'd say they are similarly free.
The government collects taxes, the church collects tithe, Google collects ad impressions...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meme? That's what freedom of speech is. It specifically has to do with the government. Censorship is a broader term, but don't invoke "free speech" if you don't want it to apply to the government case.
That's what freedom of speech is. It specifically has to do with the government. No, it damn well is not. Freedom of speech is the principle , the first amendment is the law . The law protects a principle our society has deemed important. The principle exists with or without a government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What use is the legal right to speech if your neighbors will bash your head in for it? Freedom of speech is not just the right, but also the idea of a society that tolerates it. This is what bothers me: Every time an internet corporation deletes someone's account for wrongthink, a herd of crypto-facists pops up to remind everyone that the First only pertains to government censorship (or even erroneously claim that on…
In this (US) society, you can speak your mind just about all you want without worrying about the government sending jack-booted thugs to haul you away. However, this does not mean that a private company is obligated to give you a free platform to disseminate your speech. You can go make yourself a sign and stand on a street corner if you want, but no one has an obligation to listen to you, or to help you spread your…
I would add that it's also because the government can censor people when it otherwise wouldn't be involved - a person hosting a blog with a third party, for example. Ordinarily, only that third party gets to decide whether or not to provide a platform for your data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what freedom of speech is. It specifically has to do with the government. No, it damn well is not. Freedom of speech is the principle , the first amendment is the law . The law protects a principle our society has deemed important. The principle exists with or without a government.
In this case, it certainly does only apply to the government. You can't force another person or entity to host your content - they're allowed to set whatever conditions they want to.
Which literally nobody here suggested that they should be obligated to do so. What's your point?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, Lolita by Nabokov is not banned in France. I saw this book myself in a French library a few years ago. And according to French wikipedia ( https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita#Les_traductions_fran.C3... ), a new French translation was published in 2001.
It's been a while since I've read _Lolita_. If my memory serves me correctly, the novel contains no depictions of sex or sexual intimacy. Amazing work of literature, by the way.
(I don't think Lolita should be banned anywhere. It's not a pro-pedophilia artwork.)
From Reddit: "I've read a few of Cooper's books and the short answer is yes, pedophilia is a common theme in his writing (as is incest and necrophilia)." [1] I'm calling it now. It was child porn. Google doesn't like to go around deleting people's stuff. When this has happened in the past it's been child porn, which Google is obligated by governments everywhere to delete with extreme prejudice. And of course they're…
Childporn seems to be the trigger here, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. This story illustrates a huge problem facing nearly all social media re child pornography. The laws seem like bright line, but in reality they are no such thing. Nearly everything is a judgment call. Nearly every daily decision is based on vague and uncertain definitions. (Fyi, I try to avoid the now-popular term "child abuse imagery" be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google doesn't need a legal cause. It is their service, so they only need a cause defined in their own terms of service.
Google acts like it is a public utility when it is convenient to them, and a private service when it isn't.
It's the artist's own fault that he didn't make a backup.