Is a more general application of this idea a 'vacation mode' -- a way to enforce an intentional limited vacation from social media?
Social Media Needs a Travel Mode
221–228 of 228 posts
Re: Social Media Needs a Travel Mode
#222Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thankfully, as US citizens we are free to establish a norm of using features like this, with no fear of deportation.
If you are willing to do this, then why not just say "no" to the CBP and DHS? You must be allowed in if you are a citizen so the only risk is them keeping your phone for a few weeks while they try to hack it to get inside. I believe they are required to send it back to you once they are done by law or agency policy. That's what I plan to do if I ever get asked - telling them to piss off. Worst they can do is confisca…
> . Not a peep, just dirty looks back and forth. Eventually they had to let me go. Moral of the story is that cops do back down plenty of times but you have to have the will to test them. And it greatly helps if you know the law.
It also helps if you aren't a person of color.
Re: Social Media Needs a Travel Mode
#223Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too. I believe our right to free speech is the most important thing we have. However, if someone reads a post they don't like why should they HAVE to hire you? As an employer if I read something that genuinely offended me (I have no idea if that's even possible) I wouldn't hire them. I hire people I think are going to make the team better and that I think we would…
I believe I specifically said that I understand my free speech has a cost. Now, I don't know if you'll get this, since my original comment seems hidden or shadowbanned from the main discussion now, which just goes to prove the point brilliantly. What I had originally written on my personal web site was standard, old-fashioned Christian teaching about homosexuality, based on the Bible. Hate the sin; love the sinner. T…
You do realize that the 1st Amendment only applies to government restrictions of free speech and not restrictions by private entities?
Re: Social Media Needs a Travel Mode
#224Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe I specifically said that I understand my free speech has a cost. Now, I don't know if you'll get this, since my original comment seems hidden or shadowbanned from the main discussion now, which just goes to prove the point brilliantly. What I had originally written on my personal web site was standard, old-fashioned Christian teaching about homosexuality, based on the Bible. Hate the sin; love the sinner. T…
You do realize that the 1st Amendment only applies to government restrictions of free speech and not restrictions by private entities?
I believe both of my comments make it evident that I'm perfectly clear on this. In fact, I don't see how it would be possible to argue what I WAS saying without understanding this. But, hey, I've been wrong before; I will be again.
Re: Social Media Needs a Travel Mode
#225Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do realize that the 1st Amendment only applies to government restrictions of free speech and not restrictions by private entities?
I believe both of my comments make it evident that I'm perfectly clear on this. In fact, I don't see how it would be possible to argue what I WAS saying without understanding this. But, hey, I've been wrong before; I will be again.
Huh? Quoting your comment exactly:
> "If I'm not allowed to say what I want to say, by being fired by my employer and blackballed from further employment, or by being downvoted to oblivion or filtered or shadowbanned by Ycombinator or Facebook or Reddit, or having my account cancelled at the web host provider I use, what good are my Constitutional rights of freedom of speech and religion? You may find this situation wonderful because you hate what I have to say, but I think everyone should find the trend alarming."
If a private employer decides to fire you because of something you said, that's not a violation of your First Amendment rights. Or are you trying to argue that the First Amendment should encompass more than government restrictions on speech? If so that's not clear from what you wrote - it sounds like you believe it already should protect that.
> "Maybe you really are arguing that freedom of speech and religion only grants someone the right to not being jailed when all they have left is to stand, homeless, on the street corner with a sign, shouting at passerby -- and then they'll be jailed for not having a permit, or something -- but I would have thought that the Constitution meant the First Amendment for more protection than that."
No one is argueing that. That's exactly what the First Amendment says (only pertains to government restrictions).
Re: Social Media Needs a Travel Mode
#226Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe both of my comments make it evident that I'm perfectly clear on this. In fact, I don't see how it would be possible to argue what I WAS saying without understanding this. But, hey, I've been wrong before; I will be again.
Huh? Quoting your comment exactly: > "If I'm not allowed to say what I want to say, by being fired by my employer and blackballed from further employment, or by being downvoted to oblivion or filtered or shadowbanned by Ycombinator or Facebook or Reddit, or having my account cancelled at the web host provider I use, what good are my Constitutional rights of freedom of speech and religion? You may find this situation…
In the words in Inigo, "No, there is too much. Let me sum up."
By reason of the First Amendment and the Equal Protection clause, all manner of discrimination has been made illegal. All except discrimination against conservative or Christian speech. I fear for my job if I so much am overheard to speak on these issues in a way that would imply that I think someone else is morally wrong.
Re: Social Media Needs a Travel Mode
#227Re: Social Media Needs a Travel Mode
#228Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a statement that's true for all sorts of issues, for all sorts of people, at all sorts of places. But what matters is whether their employer has made them responsible for solving those issues. What are they paid to do?
They can do whatever they want to do, including organize, work to rule, walk out, or go on strike.
If only they would!