41–50 of 304 posts
I'm actually glad to see the conclusion. Everybody wants to censor what they don't like. There are people who believe free speech is not the ultimate value, but rather to protect people from 'harm'. In this case 'harm' being ideas they don't agree with. The best stance is not to take a side, but to make sure both sides are civil in the expression of their beliefs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would it be real when it was leaked by breitbart? Are the lizard people also real? Is the earth flat? Do vaccines cause autism?
You obviously don't read Breitbart.
I don’t particularly like the Clintons, but unlike breitbart, I do consider them to be human beings.
Underpinning the whole question of censorship; “Under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, tech firms have legal immunity from the majority of the content posted on their platforms (unlike ‘traditional’ media publications). This protection has empowered YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Reddit to create spaces for free speech without the fear of legal action or its financial consequence.” Censoring content is…
I'm actually glad to see the conclusion. Everybody wants to censor what they don't like. There are people who believe free speech is not the ultimate value, but rather to protect people from 'harm'. In this case 'harm' being ideas they don't agree with. The best stance is not to take a side, but to make sure both sides are civil in the expression of their beliefs.
I'm actually glad to see the conclusion. Everybody wants to censor what they don't like. There are people who believe free speech is not the ultimate value, but rather to protect people from 'harm'. In this case 'harm' being ideas they don't agree with. The best stance is not to take a side, but to make sure both sides are civil in the expression of their beliefs.
Underpinning the whole question of censorship; “Under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, tech firms have legal immunity from the majority of the content posted on their platforms (unlike ‘traditional’ media publications). This protection has empowered YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Reddit to create spaces for free speech without the fear of legal action or its financial consequence.” Censoring content is…
What would be the practical consequences of losing this immunity?
You can sue Google for damages if someone uploads a copyrighted movie to youtube.
You can sue Google for libel or slander if someone posts disparaging statements about an individual to Blogspot or Youtube
Since Google has a lot of money and the people who publish this content may not have too much money, Google would become the target for many lawsuits
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Breitbart watermark makes me very suspicious, I would treat it as probably worthless until we see more reliable sources.
They're definitely not the most reputable news source and many of their opinion pieces definitely step into fake territory, but I think outright falsifying an entire document like this would be a very extreme move, even for them.
I caution against latching onto the title and making assumptions. The bulk of the content is analyzing where the current censorship position came from and the conclusion is for Google to be more open with their stance and also be more equal with applying it. As for the why: Why the shift toward censorship? - User Demands - before, In the absence of rules, bad behaviour thrived - now, Appease users, maintain platform…
Yeah, honestly I don't think Breitbart and similar can really play this as negative for Google when it acknowledges many actions have been taken even against right wingers unfairly and encourages "Don't take sides" as a top point. The biggest thing to complain about would probably be the title... they couldn't have picked a worse title.
I'm actually glad to see the conclusion. Everybody wants to censor what they don't like. There are people who believe free speech is not the ultimate value, but rather to protect people from 'harm'. In this case 'harm' being ideas they don't agree with. The best stance is not to take a side, but to make sure both sides are civil in the expression of their beliefs.
What both sides though? The alt-right isn’t in opposition to anything mainstream, they are anti-democratic and should be treated the same way antifa, farc, isis and others are. Every time democracy fails to shut down movements like the alt-right, things end badly for democracy itself. The most used throve is stuff like nazism and fascism, but history actually have a lot of better examples. Because both Napoleon and C…
Sure, right now you'll think there is a clear criteria. But in 25, 50, or 100 years from now, people could have easily twisted it to mean whatever they disagree with.
I'm actually glad to see the conclusion. Everybody wants to censor what they don't like. There are people who believe free speech is not the ultimate value, but rather to protect people from 'harm'. In this case 'harm' being ideas they don't agree with. The best stance is not to take a side, but to make sure both sides are civil in the expression of their beliefs.
A right to free speech is a recent, American-centric invention, rather than a natural cornerstone of democracy, a fact that often seems lost on Americans.