Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 307 posts

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#291

Post by humanrebar »

nisuni wrote: post #281
bavell wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it so funny how people think "freedom of speech" protects them from private enterprises. The first amendment protects your right to freedom of speech from the GOVERNMENT, and only the government. "Congress shall make no law..." Their algorithm is not interfering with your free speech because you have no right to free speech on THEIR platform. Facebook can manipulate you, shame you, ban you, etc. from their pla…

The First Amendment, as you correctly point out, protects freedom of speech in certain cases that are not really relevant here. However, people might support a higher standard for freedom of speech, and might wish businesses also concur in protecting it. This is not in the law, but very often people have moral standards that are stricter than the law. Therefore, I don’t see any contradiction here. Myself, I full ackn…

This. Human rights are universal rights regardless of who attempts to exert control. Government is in particular interesting because of its monopoly in violence, but other powerful actors and groups need to be responsible and accountable as well.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#292

Post by 0xy »

zeroonetwothree wrote: post #102
tech-historian wrote: post #64

Serious questions: Are the people that work at Facebook proud to work there? What is morale like inside that place? When someone asks you what you do, and you say "I work for Facebook," what is their typical reaction? Not trying to be snarky. I'm genuinely curious how these perceptions/feelings might have changed over the past few years.

I could ask the same about working for the NYT. https://slatestarcodex.com/

New York Times: Lied about Iraq WMDs and helped get tens of thousands of people killed.

Facebook: Won't censor your political enemies enough.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#293

Post by klyrs »

ykevinator wrote: post #278
klyrs wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Facebook has a right to free speech. They can moderate and curate content on their site. Their commitment to your free speech is "free as in beer" -- as in, you're giving them content and they don't pay you a dime for it.

Agreed, and companies are free to boycott

This got flagged? Yes, freedom of association is still relevant in 2020.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#294

Post by perl4ever »

jfengel wrote: post #119
camillomiller wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm frankly flabbergasted by what's going on with the markets. If anyone thought stocks were still somehow a projection of reality and an indicator of expectations on the future of a company's performance, well, that's clearly not the case anymore. I am really scared that a real devastating collapse is still looming, but I frankly have no clue of when that could happen and what could actually trigger it.

It is baffling, and I've been expecting a crash for a decade... which is the problem. The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent. Right now it's kind of persistently slightly irrational. A quick-and-dirty measure of its sanity is the P/E ratio: how much money are the publicly listed companies actually making? Right now, the number is around 22[1], meaning a dollar invested in the market takes…

People have been writing stuff about short-termism being the bane of the economy for a long time; maybe it's worth reconsidering the idea that prices reflect estimated total future profits and not the next quarter? Could short-termism be a myth?

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#295

Post by perl4ever »

HeroOfAges wrote: post #268
sneak wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As usual, context is everything in communication. "Males are not females" may be accurate when referring to biological sex, but in the context it is most commonly used (as harassment and as a neoconservative tribal signifier) it is referring to gender, and is roughly equivalent to saying "the gender you have now should match the gender you were assigned at birth, or your gender identity is illegitimate". It's similar…

Since when does the truth need context? If I tweet "males are not females" on Twitter with no context, they will ban my account. Also, if I want to say "the gender you have now should match the gender you were assigned at birth, or your gender identity is illegitimate", that's precisely what I'll say, but I tend to speak directly. Have you considered you might be projecting if you can read the literal words "males ar…

I'd say the truth value of any possible statement is entirely derived from context. Any possible statement could appear on a sign from nowhere in an infinite empty universe purely out of quantum fluctuations, but it would have no meaning without the context of a universe like ours. Every statement has a context in which it expresses the truth, and many others in which it is false. And people get into conflicts about the meta-issue of whose context is right.

Mach's principle is kind of an analogy I'm thinking of.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#296

Post by ben_w »

s_y_n_t_a_x wrote: post #270
ben_w wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now I’m confused, are you describing the police or BLM?

The fact that you think it matters which one is the problem.

I am confused because to me it doesn’t seem like OP is describing either.

One group has heavy weapons, heavy armour, a de-facto presumption in court of being justified when they use even lethal force, and a powerful lobby group that fights to prevent them losing their jobs.

The other group is at risk of losing their limbs, eyesight, liberty, or lives, by having the audacity to complain when the former kills one of their friends or family.

Neither of these groups matches OPs description.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#297

Post by s_y_n_t_a_x »

ben_w wrote: post #296
s_y_n_t_a_x wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that you think it matters which one is the problem.

I am confused because to me it doesn’t seem like OP is describing either . One group has heavy weapons, heavy armour, a de-facto presumption in court of being justified when they use even lethal force, and a powerful lobby group that fights to prevent them losing their jobs. The other group is at risk of losing their limbs, eyesight, liberty, or lives, by having the audacity to complain when the former kills one of t…

Because those are your descriptions, which not everyone agrees with, especially since you're lumping huge groups of people together.

Either way, talking about a group should not get you fired, period.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#298

Post by ben_w »

s_y_n_t_a_x wrote: post #297
ben_w wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am confused because to me it doesn’t seem like OP is describing either . One group has heavy weapons, heavy armour, a de-facto presumption in court of being justified when they use even lethal force, and a powerful lobby group that fights to prevent them losing their jobs. The other group is at risk of losing their limbs, eyesight, liberty, or lives, by having the audacity to complain when the former kills one of t…

Because those are your descriptions, which not everyone agrees with, especially since you're lumping huge groups of people together. Either way, talking about a group should not get you fired, period.

People disagree that the American police are routinely armed? That’s the first I’ve heard.

Does anyone actually disagree that the police have a presumption of justification for lethal force? Because literally every time I’ve seen this conversation, for longer than I’ve been online, the argument from those opposed to the protesters of the moment and in favour of the police response has been that they should have that presumption not if they have that presumption.

Does anyone disagree that the protestors face the prospect of injury or loss of life? Despite, to use one of far too many salient examples from this year alone, the video of a pensioner being knocked to the ground by one cop and bleeding from the head as the rest just walked around him without even attempting to offer first aid?

As for what ought to be acceptable grounds for firing… how many states are “at-will” or whatever the correct term is? In those places, anything goes.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#299

Post by s_y_n_t_a_x »

ben_w wrote: post #298
s_y_n_t_a_x wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because those are your descriptions, which not everyone agrees with, especially since you're lumping huge groups of people together. Either way, talking about a group should not get you fired, period.

People disagree that the American police are routinely armed? That’s the first I’ve heard. Does anyone actually disagree that the police have a presumption of justification for lethal force? Because literally every time I’ve seen this conversation, for longer than I’ve been online, the argument from those opposed to the protesters of the moment and in favour of the police response has been that they should have that…

You seem to have a distorted view of America.

You should probably live here before you pass judgement.

Listening to the echo chamber here and the mainstream news that comes out of America is not the full picture.

Re: Ad Boycott of Facebook Keeps Growing

#300

Post by ben_w »

s_y_n_t_a_x wrote: post #299
ben_w wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People disagree that the American police are routinely armed? That’s the first I’ve heard. Does anyone actually disagree that the police have a presumption of justification for lethal force? Because literally every time I’ve seen this conversation, for longer than I’ve been online, the argument from those opposed to the protesters of the moment and in favour of the police response has been that they should have that…

You seem to have a distorted view of America. You should probably live here before you pass judgement. Listening to the echo chamber here and the mainstream news that comes out of America is not the full picture.

I’ve had four one month long trips to the USA, three east coast, one west. I’ve walked from San Jose train station to Cupertino, from South Ferry Station to Broadway, seen the earthworks demolishing the mountains around Salt Lake City, and visited houses in Boston and Providence that are utterly alien to what I’m used to as a European.

One of the places I visited was UC Davis. The incident there has its own Wikipedia page.

In Newark, I got to see things which don’t make it into international media, like an African-American outdoor market with banners pleading the readers to treat the humans with, at a minimum, the same respect as is shown for these people’s cultural contributions to the USA.

All of this is because my ex is actually an American citizen. Heck, because of her, I’ve met Jill Stein twice.

Now, can you actually provide me with a reason to change my mind?

Post reply on HN