41–50 of 356 posts
But oh not all speech just some speech that we don’t like. Only we are allowed to define the type of speech we don’t like. And we reserve the right to change at any time.
So, please just censor speech that we don’t like. On this day. At this hour. At this minute. And next minute we’ll tell you what to censor next.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hard to phrase this in a way that doesn't sound snarky, but I mean it sincerely: Would you rather they become more like Twitter instead? Promoting virality is promoting outrage content, full-stop.
Could we prefer they no longer exist? Examples: there’s nothing an oil company can turn into that continues to sell oil in a non harmful manner. Altria tried to adopt vaping (still harmful) to move away from cigarettes (very harmful!). Some businesses and their products should simply not exist due to the harm they cause. I apologize upfront if this doesn’t seem genuine and instead, unnecessarily controversial.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly? I think all political advertising shouldn't be allowed, it gives those with a disproportionate amount of capital a lever of influence that runs counter to the democratic process. If you want to push an issue you should have to organize people who believe in your cause and have them involved. There's been plenty of examples of microtargeting's influence that makes me think it has no place in the political di…
Yep, it's pretty much how campaigns here in Germany work. There's about a few weeks of campaigning during which political posters and so on can be put up, but otherwise there's strict regulation on political ads. Also the parties are significantly publicly financed and the amount of money is much lower, due to the much shorter campaign span, making the process much more egalitarian. For example the largest party in G…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Hillary would have won none of this would have been a problem.
What would Hillary have done that would have avoided this situation? This is a dispute between two private companies, and there's not a clear piece of legislation that would prevent this, especially one that would be approved by Congress.
:-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it impossible that Verizon is responding, at least in part, to public pressure against Facebook?
The timing is quite suspicious.
Verizon could be doing it because of ad budgeting reasons. Verizon could be doing it because of public pressure. Most likely, both benefits go into their cost-benefit analysis.
I'm not American, I'm not in Facebook either. I've read TFA and still don't have a clue what is Facebook criticized for. What's that hate speech and who's doing it?
Keep politics out of business. Stop caving into activist pressure (whether internal or external) and online outrage. That isn't representative of what customers care about or want. Companies entering cultural/ideological wars (like Verizon) are doing so based on the voices of a small vocal minority of people. By adopting such stances, these companies are doing the silent majority of their customers a huge disservice…
> These companies are basically being gamed by sophisticated organization, campaigning, and manufactured outrage. I'm sorry I lost the thread. Is "these companies" the boycotting companies or the boycotted? > Stop caving into activist pressure and online outrage. Is this post not "online outrage"?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly? I think all political advertising shouldn't be allowed, it gives those with a disproportionate amount of capital a lever of influence that runs counter to the democratic process. If you want to push an issue you should have to organize people who believe in your cause and have them involved. There's been plenty of examples of microtargeting's influence that makes me think it has no place in the political di…
What you're calling the democratic process is simply people willing to spend capital on a cause. It's just that their capital is time (and time is money). It doesn't make them any holier, and there's nothing morally or ethically superior about having to "organize people" without spending money. Put another way, I may be able to exert my political voice using money and I am not less deserving of having my opinion hear…
Keep politics out of business. Stop caving into activist pressure (whether internal or external) and online outrage. That isn't representative of what customers care about or want. Companies entering cultural/ideological wars (like Verizon) are doing so based on the voices of a small vocal minority of people. By adopting such stances, these companies are doing the silent majority of their customers a huge disservice…
So if a company feels like they can acquire more customers or employees, or gain positive publicity by taking certain actions and expressing their right to free speech, shouldn't they be able to? This is why businesses take political stances in the first place. A company would be doing a disservice to shareholders by _not_ taking an action which could improve financials.
Before gay marriage was legal, for example, companies would stand up for gay rights and offer gay employees equal benefits, because it would help with talent acquisition and expand their pool of possible employees. This is a "political" stance with clear selfish, financial implications.
You have the right to not shop or procure services at a business which does not support your ideology, but others have their own right to choose companies based on the actions they take. That's the beauty of the free market.
Regulating or otherwise stifling companies' speech and actions in this way simply hinders progress and the marketplace of ideas.