741–750 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sword rattling is pretty standard behavior for leaders everywhere throughout history.
Sure, alongside slavery, genocide and mass murder. Perhaps we might draw a line on occasion?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He and his colleagues were immediately fired and he has since been charged for his actions. It hasn't even been a week, what more do you want? edit: s/charged/arrested
That's not correct, none of the four officers involved have been charged yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It depends. And the problem that people have is that social media companies want to be both publishers and platforms. For example, T-Mobile is a platform. They aren't responsible for anything you say when on the phone, using their network. CNN is a publisher. They are responsible for anything that gets posted on their website, and can get sued accordingly. Social media companies want to choose what is posted on their…
perhaps there aren't two sides.. that there is a genuine third form: the publisher-platform -- one which best describes both how these platforms do operate, and how they should do so. When you have billions of users wanting to post content you can hardly be a publisher in any traditional sense; nor will the gov./society/users let you be a platform.
The latter is a type of tacit endorsement that to me, falls under the guise of "publishing", even if it's done in an automated fashion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This entire event is effectively self-defense from a community that has felt terrorized by the police for decades. It could've been easily prevented by actually arresting someone that committed abject murder, but the city and the police chose to instead defend a man who has killed multiple people in the past and got away with it scott-free. So when people feel like justice no longer exists, there should be no surpris…
Looting private businesses and setting fires isn’t “self-defense”.
I can’t believe everyone is suddenly in favour of censorship. Do you want 1984? Because this is how you get 1984.
So I have a question about this. Does free speech apply to platforms like Facebook and Twitter? I would have thought that a website owner has a choice about the content of their website, even if that content is user generated. Surely they could remove any tweet they wanted and not be sued?
People are wondering "How far does this go? How can Twitter say this is not cool, but allow something like violent movies or games? Where's the line?" The leader of the United States encouraging law enforcement and the military to shoot American citizens for looting, that's the line.
We have laws in the UK that curtail speech like that, "Inciting violence" is a crime. Which I agree with to some extent, you're not innocent of a crime because you convinced a person to harm another, just because you were too cowardly to get your hands dirty yourself. But the US is rather famously not British, so I'm not sure if it's a relevant thing to add to the discussion.
The relevant kind of speech for "free expression" is that which seeks to express an idea/opinion/belief of the speaker.
That isn't criminalised in the UK as far as I'm aware, and would fall under the EHCR protections in any case which are in UK law as the human rights act.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Relevant: https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/28/us/la-riots-korean-americans/... > The Rodney King verdict and the ensuing riots are often framed as a turning point for law enforcement and the African-American community. But it's also the single most significant modern event for Korean-Americans, says Edward Taehan Chang, professor of ethnic studies and founding director of the Young Oak Kim Center for Korean American Studi…
A fair amount of this is caused by the state and police. Why do you think that the rioters were in koreatown during the rodney king riots? Police defended the rich neighborhoods and pushed the riot into places where society tolerates more damage.
I know it is "never too late" for things like this to happen, but it's definitely late. One of the main reasons for bad things to happen is the lack of education (which, in turn, leads to resist to change) and, therefore makes people prone to believe to unbelievable things. Social platforms like Twitter should have long had things like "fact checking" ANY statements and should have restricting not only violence glori…
Yeah, the whole reason we have public education is that democracy requires a knowledgeable voter base. When social media companies were just starting out, I get why they weren't fretting about societal effects. But even if we go by business metrics, a collapse of democracy would probably be bad for their businesses. It's past time for social media companies to take responsibility for their negative externalities. And…
But the ride the will be extremely profitable and business have shown to care more about short term than long term. Some examples are Nestle guzzling ground water during droughts, Johnson's baby powder with talc, the entire oil gas and coal industry, Pacific gas and electric company, etc.
The neutral companies, such as utilities, online hosting or financial providers serve nearly everyone with little objections - they defer to the law rather than any internal policies. The more selective companies such as newspapers and TV channels are expected to restrict who can get published. By representing itself both as an open platform and as a company with progressive values, Twitter has put itself into an awk…
They fucked this up so badly. They could have just banned him and said "It's a free country and they felt like it." Instead they're trying to high-road, and it's.. such a mistake.
I was thinking about what you said in the other thread about trolls, and I think you're off-base. Trolls aren't zen master ego busters, they're the self-hating jerks they seem to be. The "zen master ego buster" story is just another layer of the ego trip.