131–140 of 356 posts
Many of the comments in this thread do not understand the concept of free speech from a legal perspective. Free speech does not mean that you have the right to say or distribute whatever you want on whatever platform, owned by a private corporation you want. on a side note - these are super dog whistle comments, and I'm surprised the mods are ok with them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am as cynical about the behavior of large corporations as anyone. But you can never really know anybody's motivations, only guess them from their actions. 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 just searched for Verizon on Google, and there was a Verizon ad, so they're still spending on digital marketing elsewhere. That Google ad is not even likely to be profitable considering Verizon owns all the organic links in the first page of results except for the Wikipedia result ranked fourth. If they were cutting advertising spend due to the economy, it would be rational to cut unprofitable spend first. I'm incl…
I am very nervous that the main US political outcomes of 2020 will be a reduction in free speech and expansion of executive powers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Comcast serving everyone. Planned Parenthood not turning away any customer. Airlines allow anybody to fly.
All three of those examples are insanely political enterprises. You basically showed your lack of awareness by answering the question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I'd like to hear the arguments behind the downvotes you're getting. To me, it seems that there are some things that, for the sake of the continued existence of our species (and countless others) on this planet, must simply be seen with clarity.
Saying we should move towards using significantly less oil and that companies should pay for the negative externalities they cause is rational, saying oil companies should fundementally not exist is irrational.
Similarly, while I find the way that cigarette companies operate to be abhorrent (specifically they way they use international law to fight packaging and health laws), people deserve the right to smoke if they choose as well as the right to be free of abusive advertising of dangerous products.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He just parrots what he sees/hears and he spends a lot of time looking at far right content.
Can you name a place on the internet that regularly uses a red triangle as a racist symbol that Trump might have parroted this from?
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?
The triggering event, as I understand it, is they did not censor the President of the United States who said something to the effect of riots lead to death. There's two ways to interpret this. One way is that eventually people will get hurt in some way if riots continue. Another way to interpret it was as a death threat to protesters. FB's position was that even if it was a threat, that the protesters needed to know…
Actually all this seems absurd. Trump is a politician, actually a public officer, so censoring his speech is a alien concept to me. In my country certain politicians IMHO deserve jail for the outrageous nonsense they say everyday, promoting hate and justifying violence.
But nobody ask newspapers or tv to stop giving them interviews or air time. In a sense Facebook or Twitter are a kind of media, so even if the messages are disgusting, they're still relevant and the public should see them... and act accordingly when the time to vote comes.
It's other politicians who should criticize that speech and put a moderate counterpoint against it. Acting against the messenger seems misguided.
Am I missing something?
They also own things like HuffPost, Engadget and TechCrunch... It's no secret that Facebook has siphoned news revenue without having to actually do the hard and pricey work of journalism.
Someone probably drew a chart of all of Verizon's properties and figured out that Facebook is an expensive middleman between them.
I'm not a big fan of Verizon but they certainly do know how to run a business.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Selling lemonade, running a bike shop, etc.
There are permits required to run a lemonade stand and a bike shop. Who do you think sets the rules for those permits?
I get the lemonade stand, but who needs a permit to run a bike shop?
We want Facebook to censor speech on Facebook! 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.
Hate speech is widely viewed as a legitimate exception to free expression, along with other classic examples of things like yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. Not by every country to be sure, but by many democracies. You're portraying this as some kind of whim that changes with people's moods, but that's a complete, total, 100% straw man. There are decades of legislation and jurisprudence, particularly in Europ…