551–560 of 600 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are getting lost in the weeds of an imperfect metaphor.
But I have a perfect metaphor. Should it be illegal to post a picture of a 3 watt bulb, captioned as 5 watts?
Turkish here. This is unbelievable, but totally expected from the current "democractic" government. Social media usage is very high in Türkiye and people are coordinating using social media (mainly Twitter) for rescue operations in near realtime. I'm pretty much sure some people will literally die under wreckage because of communication interruptions as the result of this block. (For anyone telling to use VPN, yeah,…
Off-topic: Do most people there prefer "Türkiye" or "Turkey?"
It's just another step in the trend of undoing Atatürk's reforms that has defined the current regime. To summarize a lot of history, the foundation of modern Turkey was a pretty massive upheaval. Atatürk (the first president of Turkey, and is viewed pretty similarly to the US's founding fathers) worked pretty damn hard to drag the country away from its Ottoman roots and towards being a Western, secular, country. Under the Ottomans, the head of church and head of state were the same person, under Atatürk, church and state were separated. Atatürk's government outright banned the wear of most religious garb in public, such as fez's and headscarves. Women were given full rights. The entire alphabet was changed from an Arabic script to a Latin one. And these are just the big ones I can pull off the top of my head.
Basically, imagine if George Washington had banned crucifixes from being displayed in public and switched the US's alphabet to Cyrillic.
It is impossible to overstate how radical these reforms were, and most were intended to bring Turkey closer to Europe both economically and culturally. The following 85 years of Turkey's history, up to the modern day, has been marked by tensions between those that generally like the reforms, and would like to see Turkey continue towards being a well-respected member of the West, and the conservative faction who want Turkey to backslide into an Islamic theocracy.
The name change is one of many postures Erdoğan has taken to distance himself from the former group, and amounts to a dog-whistle for the second.
TL;DR: It's whole fucking can of worms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now that you've accepted that we should censor fraud speech you have to define the grey line between unacceptable fraud and acceptable disinformation.
> fraud speech This is you fundamentally misunderstanding what is meant by "speech". The statement itself is not illegal. The act of misrepresenting the transaction being agreed to is what's illegal. A specific act that involves many components, only one of which happens to be speech, has been made illegal. The speech component itself has not. There are certain situations where speech itself is restricted. This is no…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Holy false equivalent, Batman! The poster's point was pretty simple: there is some speech which doesn't deserve to be fully protected to the highest possible level. Untrue commercial speech like false advertising is pretty much in that category. This is why we allow attorneys-general to bring cases against false advertisers, for example. Usually the remedy is monetary damages, but injunctive relief is also available.…
Is there a sale or not? If there's not a sale it's not advertising. If it's not advertising it should be allowed, false or not. If it is advertising it's not just speech. You lack the consistency to make your argument work. So again, I guess you're fine with arresting people over light bulbs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Post reads surprisingly like an auto generated ad for NordVPN
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see your “The solution to bad speech is more speech” and raise you a “A lie can spread around the world before the truth can get its pants on”. Call or fold?
Call. How do you define a lie? Please be precise. What source of truth is used to evaluate possible lies, and who gets to make the final determination? What level of confidence is required? Does intent matter? Does a statement count as a lie if it is factually correct, or at least not provably incorrect, but still potentially misleading or lacking relevant context?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If there's not a sale it's not advertising. This is a really strange perspective. Advertising is only advertising once the advertised product is sold? A billboard is simultaneously an advertisement and not an advertisement depending on whether the observer has purchased the advertised item? Not the GP but no, I'm not fine with arresting people over light bulbs. I am totally cool with arresting them for fraud if it…
There’s an implicit conversion between intent to sell and actually selling. For there to be advertising, one of the two has to be true. If I’m showing off my car, am I advertising anything?
If you show off your car you are indeed, by definition advertising it.
I know that's not the definition youre referring to, but the word does mean to call attention to, especially in a boastful or ostentatious manner.
But anyway, it's still advertising because the car has the manufacturers badges, it's just not first order commercial advertising.
Turkish here. This is unbelievable, but totally expected from the current "democractic" government. Social media usage is very high in Türkiye and people are coordinating using social media (mainly Twitter) for rescue operations in near realtime. I'm pretty much sure some people will literally die under wreckage because of communication interruptions as the result of this block. (For anyone telling to use VPN, yeah,…
The Diyanet said "Do not look to social media for hope in finding loved ones, look to Allah". A few minutes later twitter was blocked. I think god is jealous of Twitter today.
There's a man who gets warning that his village is about to be flooded and he gets a warning he needs to evacuate immediately. He says he places his trust in god and decides to wait for god's help. A while later a tractor comes by and asks him if wants a ride out of the village, he tells them he places his trust his god to rescue them and tells them goodbye. A while later a bunch of cow herders and asks if wants a walk out of the village, he tells them .. trust.. god. Now water begins to come into the village. He climbs to the top of a hillock. A while later a few people arrive in a boat and ask him if we wants a ride out of the village, he tells them .. trust .. god. A while later he dies and then complains to god about help not arriving. God asks what else but help was the warning, tractor, cow herders and boat were?
There's a joke in here that Twitter is how God wants to help.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there a sale or not? If there's not a sale it's not advertising. If it's not advertising it should be allowed, false or not. If it is advertising it's not just speech. You lack the consistency to make your argument work. So again, I guess you're fine with arresting people over light bulbs.
> If there's not a sale it's not advertising. This is a really strange perspective. Advertising is only advertising once the advertised product is sold? A billboard is simultaneously an advertisement and not an advertisement depending on whether the observer has purchased the advertised item? Not the GP but no, I'm not fine with arresting people over light bulbs. I am totally cool with arresting them for fraud if it…
I just can't anymore with HN. Who are these people who are redefining common terms to suit their own views?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Advertising is speech; there is no sale.
If there is to be no sale, then is it really advertising at all? If I "advertise" that I own a thing with no intention of selling that thing, then laws about honest advertisement don't apply to me. My car (not for sale) has a nuclear reactor and can travel through time.
https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/advertising-...
Counter-example:
> What can my company do if a competitor is running an ad that I think is deceptive?
> Explore your legal options under federal and state statutes that protect businesses from unfair competition. For example, the Lanham Act gives companies the right to sue their competitors for making deceptive claims in ads.
> Are advertising agencies subject to the FTC Act?
> Yes. In addition to the advertiser, the advertising agency also may be held legally responsible for misleading claims in ads. Advertising agencies have a duty to make an independent check on the information used to substantiate ad claims. They may not rely on an advertiser's assurance that the claims are substantiated.
I don't see anything about false advertising requiring a sale.