341–350 of 410 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have the right to speak. You do not have the right to either a forum (Facebook) or an audience.
I’d rather find a world where humans do have that right than stay in the ruins of this one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people I know that work there still either: 1) Have little concern about the ethics. 2) Care about money. 3) Feel smart and important for working there (I'm smart, I made it). This won't change their view on those things.
What about people that fear they won't be able to get another job? You say 'care about money' to make them sound callous but that could include people who care about being able to put food on their family table.
this doesn't apply almost any engineer working at facebook. Everyone was hiring before corona hit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where your argument fails is that nowhere in the Constitution, or quotes like that is mentioned the right to be _heard_. You have no inherent right to an audience (either on Facebook, or in a public place). In-person, I can walk away. But the virtual equivalent is "stifling"?
> It has nothing to do with the legal definition of free speech. I am not talking about the Constitution. I’m talking about a cultural value. Not the same thing.
Remember when "I disagree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it" was a thing? I certainly do. How far we've fallen as a culture since then.
People misunderstand that quote as much as people misunderstand the concept of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means that the police can't raid your house for what you think or say or a judge cannot rule against you for what you think or say. But freedom of speech doesn't mean that other people are forced to either listen to you or provide with their own private means (like content hosting or bandwidth) for you…
"The First Amendment" is the law that protects us from the government stopping free speech.
"Freedom of speech" is a principle that civilized cultures adopt so that people who disagree aren't shut out of the conversation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where your argument fails is that nowhere in the Constitution, or quotes like that is mentioned the right to be _heard_. You have no inherent right to an audience (either on Facebook, or in a public place). In-person, I can walk away. But the virtual equivalent is "stifling"?
> It has nothing to do with the legal definition of free speech. I am not talking about the Constitution. I’m talking about a cultural value. Not the same thing.
Now if your argument is (as often, theirs is) that those platforms are fringe, not nearly-as-popular, I would theorize that that is because a larger majority of people have heard some of these things and have zero interest in hearing more.
But they can still say it.
And at that point, I ask, what is the cultural value of requiring people to hear things they've decided they do not wish to?
Remember when "I disagree with what you say, but will defend your right to say it" was a thing? I certainly do. How far we've fallen as a culture since then.
People misunderstand that quote as much as people misunderstand the concept of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech means that the police can't raid your house for what you think or say or a judge cannot rule against you for what you think or say. But freedom of speech doesn't mean that other people are forced to either listen to you or provide with their own private means (like content hosting or bandwidth) for you…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d rather find a world where humans do have that right than stay in the ruins of this one.
You would? The world you're describing is one where every drunk ranting at a bar is entitled to have you listen. That seems like far more of a nightmare than this existing world that you describe as "ruins".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about people that fear they won't be able to get another job? You say 'care about money' to make them sound callous but that could include people who care about being able to put food on their family table.
> they won't be able to get another job? this doesn't apply almost any engineer working at facebook. Everyone was hiring before corona hit.
Except that the "glorification of violence" depends on the interpretation. It can also be a warning that people will start to defend themselves with violence or that the military will intervene. If that's the case those warning are here to AVOID violence by discouraging people to engage in looting... Facebook shouldn't make such decision based on the interpretation of some emotionally biased employees.
"When the looting starts, the shooting starts" - quote from a segregationist who did some pretty despicable things. "We have vicious dogs" - Who is this, Mr. Burns? "Release the hounds!" "I'm wondering if we can't have some kind of MAGA-counterprotest here. MAGA-people like the black folk. They like African Americans. Maybe they can show up to counterprotest." - seriously? This is about as close to Cartman-esque chan…
...but more fundamentally, the question is who gets to decide? Corporations or elected officials? ...can't vote out a corporation if you make them arbiters of truth and don't like the choices they make.
Except that the "glorification of violence" depends on the interpretation. It can also be a warning that people will start to defend themselves with violence or that the military will intervene. If that's the case those warning are here to AVOID violence by discouraging people to engage in looting... Facebook shouldn't make such decision based on the interpretation of some emotionally biased employees.
>In 1967, Miami police Chief Walter Headley used the phrase "when the looting starts, the shooting starts" during hearings about crime in the Florida city, invoking angry reactions from civil rights leaders, according to a news report at the time. > Segregationist presidential candidate George Wallace also used the phrase during the 1968 campaign. While you might like to believe that the phrase could mean anything ,…
Are we going to debate every tweet's historical usage?
Should we start looking at AOC's or Bernie Sanders' uses of the word "revolution" in their tweets too?