111–120 of 121 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Relevant XKCD from way back in 2006: https://www.xkcd.com/137/
He has since changed his mind: https://xkcd.com/1357/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't sound like he did at all. The first cartoon states that you should have the right to say everything you feel you should say, while the second states that no one is forced to listen to you.
"If you are yelled at, boycotted [due to pressure from China], have your show cancelled [due to pressure from China], get banned from an internet community [due to pressure from China], your free speech rights aren't being violated"
You might notice the part where the people who offended china are lauded and the cowardly companies are being lambasted for failing to stand up to china.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If you are yelled at, boycotted [due to pressure from China], have your show cancelled [due to pressure from China], get banned from an internet community [due to pressure from China], your free speech rights aren't being violated"
"It's just that the people listening think you're an asshole." I don't think it's unfair to presume that the author wasn't considering "people" to be "nations" in this context.
Of course he knew perfectly well that "the people" are giant corporations. But because he agreed with the censorship at the time, he chose to frame it as somehow democratic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>problem only when the consequence is brought on you by the government It's not that corporations (or individuals) are seen as being naturally good. But they don't have the power to imprison you or silence you by force and, in fact, would be committing a crime by doing so. They have some civil remedies for stealing trade secrets or breaching NDAs. Certainly major corporations have a lot of power. But it is still a fu…
> But they don't have the power to imprison you or silence you by force The ability to fire you and give scathing negative references to any prospective future employers (thus in turn eradicating one's ability to participate in a market-driven economy/society) is just as severe of a penalty, and imposing that penalty for the purposes of silencing political dissent is just as reprehensible. We're (hopefully) critical…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He has since changed his mind: https://xkcd.com/1357/
That seems less like changing his mind and more like recognizing that if you act like a piece of crap you will (deservedly) be treated that was, and having to censor yourself to not act that way isn't a free speech violation.
I guess this employee also acted like a piece of crap and deserved it. Or does that comic only apply when he agrees with the censorship?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"If you are yelled at, boycotted [due to pressure from China], have your show cancelled [due to pressure from China], get banned from an internet community [due to pressure from China], your free speech rights aren't being violated"
Well, they aren't. You might notice the part where the people who offended china are lauded and the cowardly companies are being lambasted for failing to stand up to china.
You've made a very convincing argument - if those that are censored are afterwards lauded, then the lauding means they're not being censored. But if they're condemned, that means it's people refusing to listen - again not censorship. And if they're neither lauded nor condemned, because no-one heard of them because the censorship was successful, well then we don't even talk about it. No matter what happens, it's not censorship!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, they aren't. You might notice the part where the people who offended china are lauded and the cowardly companies are being lambasted for failing to stand up to china.
...and therefore the companies didn't try to censor? You've made a very convincing argument - if those that are censored are afterwards lauded, then the lauding means they're not being censored. But if they're condemned, that means it's people refusing to listen - again not censorship. And if they're neither lauded nor condemned, because no-one heard of them because the censorship was successful, well then we don't e…
What if instead of china he started talking about how white people need to start driving the lesser races out? Should blizzard still be required to associate with him? Is anything less than business as normal too much of an impingement on his rights?
What happened to him is just business. If you don't like it (I don't), then blame capitalism (I do).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That seems less like changing his mind and more like recognizing that if you act like a piece of crap you will (deservedly) be treated that was, and having to censor yourself to not act that way isn't a free speech violation.
"Last year, China severely punished Marriott after an employee in Omaha, Neb., “liked” a pro-Tibet tweet. Marriott profusely apologized and fired the employee." -- https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/10/07/nba-is-on... I guess this employee also acted like a piece of crap and deserved it. Or does that comic only apply when he agrees with the censorship?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AFAIK, political speech is not protected against employer discrimination.
I'm pretty sure that this is going to get you sued into oblivion: 1. I work for private company X. 2. X tells me to vote for Y, says that Y is awesome, supports Y, donates to Y. (pick any of these) 3. I campaign for and vote for Z. 4. I am fired because i voted for Z. Any outcome in which X is not crushed into little pieces is so incredibly far off the deep end from what the values of who we are as a country are that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a difference between "a lot of coverage of X is clickbait" and "any coverage of X is clickbait because X has not happened yet". The former is likely true, the latter is obviously false.
There is a difference between "things that did happen concerning a thing that is going to happen" and "hypothetical things that may or may not happen". This coverage is about US employers en masse firing employees unless they censor themselves on social media. This is not a thing that has happened. This is not coverage about the two specific incidents that actually occurred. It is speculation. The person quoted in th…
Neither have US elections in 2020. Both are likely to happen if current tendencies keep in the future, which makes it sensible to discuss what would happen then. We see people fired or under threat of firing for social media posts all the time. Is it cause for concern for everybody right now? No, not yet. Does it happen frequently enough that it might become an issue in the future? IMO, yes, absolutely.
> This is someone sitting on the sidelines and making guesses.
These are not just abstract guesses made out of nothing on a whim. Those are educated guesses made following current trends - as much as speaking about who would win 2020 US elections. In both cases, nobody knows the answer until it happens. In both cases, it still makes sense to talk about it because it is important, it might happen, and talking about it now might prevent undesirable result in the future.