131–140 of 386 posts
As previously several people commented, big tech shot itself in the foot by banning everyone they don’t agree with and suspiciously acting in the same time (Twitter and Facebook). I don’t know what they expected, other politicians saw how much power platforms hold and they are not going to sit still and wait for it to happen to them. Jack Dorsey is not an elected leader, and he has no right to act as the jury, judge…
Trolling and many other forms of online abuse may not be against any law but it is in the public interest to allow platforms to remove such content. This initiative may turn out to be the opposite of what it claims to stand for.
> it is in the public interest to allow platforms to remove such content This is not always true, and that is the issue. If the government is going to, for instance, tell us we can't gather on public property, there has to be some way to guarantee that a digital commons will remain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get your point, but there's a middle ground here that I feel countries should rightly be able to defend, instead of letting Silicon Valley American companies unilaterally decide their fate. LGBT advocates in America have become extreme, even floating ideas like giving all children puberty blockers ( https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/transgender-activist... ) while other countries like the UK are recognizing,…
> Jones, however, told the Washington Examiner that she is not advocating for all children to be put on such medications. > "I was not making an argument that all youth should be given puberty blockers. This was not an actual proposal, and it is not something I advocate or endorse," Jones said. > "This was an argument that claims of trans youth’s unreadiness to give consent to puberty blockers, if followed consistent…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yup, under this law a post mentioning true facts about nazi collaboration in poland during ww2 would be illegal.
Out of curiosity, which facts do you mean? The law is stupid of course and an attempt to fight for their point of view(that is: xenophobic, racist and intolerant), but history is a subject rather widely discussed in Poland with all the sides being represented in media.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/"Polish_death_camp"_controvers...
Freedom of speech is also freedom from compelled speech. This kind of law means the government can compel any private party to speak what they want and punish them for not doing so. This is also demonstrably damaging to the effected party. It costs money to host content. Forcing a business to host content costs them - is poland going to fund this? No. If the polish government has a problem with it then they should ma…
"Freedom of speech is also freedom from compelled speech." Uh, aren't for example nutritional labels a form of compelled speech?
Now imagine a law that forces anyone with a website who ever had an unmoderated comment section to host and display those comments forever. That's the Polish law. Isn't that on a completely different level of compelled speech?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can't really defend the US Supreme Court's actions on gay marriage from any legal viewpoint other than "because five justices said so" and "what are you gonna do about it." Popular opinion is not the talisman of judicial interpretation. If the public wants its way, they can vote for it. For what it's worth, the public did not support gay marriage until after the federal courts made it a fait accompli. E.g. In a r…
What "the federal courts in America" did is state that the rights of other human beings are not up for a vote.
And in fact, it was up for a vote. Except the vote was of 9 people with lifetime tenure.
I welcome the idea of this change. Though I think it is wrong the way it is implemented. I do not speak Polish, and maybe perhaps the Polish law is more nuanced than the article describes.
There should be a law that says you cannot produce a unilateral terms of service (you know, the shit everyone skips over when they sign up for a website to get their data harvested) that says your account can be terminated at any time for whatever reason. It should be a bilateral agreement:
-I agree to follow the rules of your service
-You agree to not arbitrarily remove me from your service
There are dozens of examples and minutia to digest that have lead us to where we are today. Voices are being silenced because feelings are too easily hurt. Misinformation too easily spread, and egos too easily bruised. People are specifically being targeted for hearsay, and because they lack a megaphone in the Court of Public Opinion, they lose catastrophically with real world consequences.
Hiding behind monopolistic corporations with snide remarks about "private platforms can do what they want" is genuine cowardice. For right now you are nothing more than a jester, and one bad joke away from your head rolling off, gleefully oblivious of your own downfall.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gay marriage had a popular majority in favour before it became legal (though obviously a popular majority doesn’t necessarily mean much in the US system.) Compare this to interracial marriage which was not approved of by the majority of the population for many years after it was made fully legal across the country .
This lays out the timeline of the shift in popular opinion for gay marriage: https://news.gallup.com/poll/117328/marriage.aspx Here's polling on interracial marriage: https://news.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-... Interracial marriage became legal nationwide in 1967 with Loving v Virginia, but wasn't approved of by the majority of Americans until 1997. Edit: I only add this to support the the comment…