911–920 of 996 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You say there making Apple seem worse, but "They're only censoring the Chinese" doesn't really make them seem any better
Different countries have different cultural norms and laws.
The rationale they gave is that hate speech appears on these apps, because some of the microblogging sites that can be accessed via Fediverse have this kind of content. Based on this rationale, I look forward to Google Play removing Chrome, Firefox, and all other web browsers from the store as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would start the discussion of "when does an example become the standard" which I don't really want to go into. Suffice it to say I do not watch the news, I very rarely visit Twitter and do not follow anyone, and that is the only way I have ever seen that expression used - in the news, on Medium, on FB, on anywhere, when I've come across it. "Agree with us or you are violent." I don't think there's a generous way…
> Suffice it to say I do not watch the news, I very rarely visit Twitter and do not follow anyone, and that is the only way I have ever seen that expression used - in the news, on Medium, on FB, on anywhere, when I've come across it. "Agree with us or you are violent." Have you Googled the term? Apart from the first page or so being dominated by that very recent event of the crowd intimidating people and many other p…
I mean that's just fine, and a perfectly fine point to make - and one with which in fact I agree; I have railed against police and prosecutors' offices for years, having been on the ass-end of their horror myself.
But if that's what one means to say, then say that; because the word 'violence' has a specific meaning not captured by "don't support the status quo".
This is a long way of saying I generally don't like slogans :/
The rationale they gave is that hate speech appears on these apps, because some of the microblogging sites that can be accessed via Fediverse have this kind of content. Based on this rationale, I look forward to Google Play removing Chrome, Firefox, and all other web browsers from the store as well.
This sort of decision by Google does make me rather uncomfortable (the entire situation is uncomfortable... https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/12/20691957/mastodon-decentr... ). But it's worth understanding why the situation may be a bit more complicated than is described above. What seems to be happening is not an absolute ban on Fediverse apps , but a ban on specific implementations that make it easy to join specific…
So basically, Google only supports the Fediverse if, like itself, it engages in censorship. The Fediverse exists not to encourage hate speech, but to discourage censorship. Hate speech is the inevitable result of allowing humans to say what like they like. Some people will choose to be nasty. Many people believe the greater good is the free flow of information, and that adults are more than capable of filtering out and avoiding those information sources which make them uncomfortable. Instead, Google wants to treat everybody like children, and be the helicopter parent that swoops in and removes anything objectionable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To be fully accurate, this is absolutely censorship, but it's not a violation of anyone's First Amendment rights. People often conflate the two. It's not censorship, its moderation and editorial discretion.
Moderation or editorial discretion that censors a certain piece of information or opinion is still censoring.
It needs to be regulated first by law makers to prevent companies applying arbitrary rules and discriminate clients based on subjective/someone's personal preferences. Countries like Austria and Germany have a law called Wiederbetätigungsgesetz which prevents public display of neonationalistic symbolism or speech. I think such a law would be a great starting point for a new law preventing hate speech and discriminati…
I'm not sure what the end-game here is for Google, or for Apple, both of whom have recently been pretty openly flexing their monopoly power. There seem to be too many of these changes to be a coincidence, although that's obviously a possibility. They seem rushed to establish some kind of precedent. Is there someone on Biden's team who is known to be a strong anti-monopolist, and this is in preparation for a administr…
For Google, seems like it's because there's an election in a few months and Google's doing whatever it can to stop Trump winning again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most service platforms are not public, either, requiring, at minimum, a way to identify the content creator, even if only to the admins. While consuming the content may be anonymous, production is not. The platform itself is only acting as a publisher. In this specific instance, Google is n the wrong. 4chan, being the obvious exception, since content can be created anonymously.
Irrelevant nitpicking. So it's pseudonymous, there is no practical difference.
That right, and duty, does not exist on a private platform that you don’t own. You are limited by the TOS and license that you, like most, willfully skip over. A private, non-government platform can tell you to STFU and Get Out and they don’t even need a reason, because it’s their platform.
You can easily set up your own free speech platform, but nobody is required to listen. That’s the main attraction of social media, a more-or-less guaranteed audience. At least until someone tells you to GTFO if you’re not hosting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> Trump just negotiated a peace deal between Israel and UAE There are lots of Christians who favor Israel but ultimately hold anti-Jewish opinions. This is weird , yes, but support of Israel should not be mistaken for support of Jews (the reverse is also, but only incidentally) true. > Trump's son in law is Jewish. So were Emil Maurice and Erhard Milch, at least according to German law. Didn't stop Hitler and Goering…
Trump isn't racist at all. He was friends with Michael Jackson, Jesse Jackson, Whitney Houston, etc. He actively tried to help Whitney from overdosing (https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/mike-love-to-t...). He calls as many victim's family members as he can, regardless of race. He calls every fallen soldier's family, regardless of their race or creed. He just pardoned a black woman who was put away for a non violent drug crime in the 90s. He signed criminal justice reform established opportunity zones in poor neighborhoods to encourage business investment. He supports school choice to help poor communities who are stuck with broken schools. He's got 11 members of his cabinet who are Jewish (Mnuchin, Friedman, etc).
He is pulling the troops out of Afghanistan: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/26/politics/us-troops-afghanista...
There are more black Republicans running for office in 2020 than in 100 years. Trump has endorsed most of them, if not all of them.
Your tired talking points are just a symptom of a coordinated hit job and misinformation campaign.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well a bunch of people are running around now saying speech is violence...so in the not too distant future we might be saying someone was murdered by words.
It is interesting that you say that. In English, we do use phrases like "X was destroyed by Z" ( I forget the exact idiom, but kids seem to be using it -- god I feel old ), where no actual destruction beyond verbal attack took place. I know you were referring to something else, but it got me thinking that we are already using the phrase. Our legal system just does not allow a lot of 'word damage' to be adjudicated.
*Note, the sub isn't interesting, I'm just demonstrating that the phrase is already in use.