Verizon suspends advertising on Facebook, joins growing boycott

Post by scarface74 » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 2:12 AM UTC

kypro wrote: post #13

We need to get corporate interests as far away from political speech as possible. It's honestly a disgrace these companies are trying to boycott Facebook for not wanting to censor our speech. We all know the phase "hate speech" is interchangeable with anything that's not deemed advertiser friendly to these corporations. You think these companies want to advertise against a status update critical of the BLM movement?…

Post by mythrwy » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 2:28 AM UTC

Barrin92 wrote: post #38

vvanders wrote: post #28

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…

Post by slg » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 2:30 AM UTC

hkai wrote: post #201

slg wrote: post #76

For all the people mentioning the free speech ramifications, I would like to point to the recommendations from the group leading this boycott[1]. It doesn't seem like any of this is related to free speech. They are asking for extra moderation and support. They also are asking for Facebook to stop profiting from hate speech and misinformation, but they stop short of asking for changes to any policy regarding the remov…

I think the concern is that some people working in tech companies and media may define "hate" as anything to the right of Karl Marx, even well-researched centrist positions. If this is true, then I can easily see why policing of political content is seen as censorship.

Post by mythrwy » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 2:37 AM UTC

pnako wrote: post #168

crazygringo wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Everything is being redefined as hate speech, so that's a moot point. "White lives matter" and "it's OK to be white" are not remotely hate speech, yet those sentences are being treated as being "white supremacist" stuff now. The laws in Europe are 1) not that great and 2) won't work in the US thanks to the 1st amendment.

Post by mythrwy » Fri, Jun 26, 2020, 2:39 AM UTC

Munky-Necan wrote: post #121

crazygringo wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Freedom of speech does not equal to freedom of consequence. What I've listened to people lately say is that when they engage in personal attacks they should be allowed to because "Freedom of Speech". Yet, the type of speech that is protected is speech that is against the government. Being mean, hurtful, and disrespectful against an individual is not protected speech, it's called being a jerk.