931–940 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Employers fire people all the time for comments on social media and they are well within their right to do so. Any suggestion otherwise is a violation of the company's freedom of speech.
Did you read about how this thread is about making freedom of speech a civil right where its protections extend to private entities?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies which spend millions on counsel every year are not going to blunder. They either have anterior motives (boost the story through censorship) or they had no choice. I don’t know what to think anymore because I don’t understand how this censorship will have any effect other than causing the story to spread like fire.
> other than causing the story to spread like fire. Does it really? I haven't seen anything on Reddit or the likes. Seems to me that the censorship has been rather successful so far.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
exactly - most miss the point that biggest news here is Twitter censoring direct messages.
I think it is bigger news that Trump operatives are trying to inject misinformation into the last few weeks of the election. They have no respect for democracy.
But these problems will still be here post-Trump, or even if he wins re-election. We need to have reasoned debate on how to deal with our new world with social media.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Particularly, claiming Russian collusion the last time did not turn out to be true, but the Media jumped on this narrative. Let's not do it again.
This has been repeatedly debunked. Crowdstrike, who was hired for the security audit, states very explicitly that their IR team had proof that COZY BEAR and FANCY BEAR had breached the network.[0] > To reference, CrowdStrike’s account of their DNC investigation, published on June 14, 2016, “CrowdStrike Services Inc., our Incident Response group, was called by the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the formal govern…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure they've learned their lesson, and next time it won't be a ban, but a difficult-to-prove reduction in visibility.
This is what Facebook already does. It turns out after a few years of this, it actually becomes pretty easy to recognize. For instance, many left news organizations that were critical of NATO have seen their posts substantially deprioritized on FB.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does the immigration system violate human rights?
We can't discuss human rights in absolute worldwide terms while looking at immigration systems, because there's no universally agreed set of human rights to discuss, as far as I know. But we can discuss violations of what it is widely regarded should be universal human rights. Here's a list of some that I consider should be universal human rights, which are often violated by immigration systems: - The right of young…
This statement might be technically true in legal terms (I am not a lawyer so I don’t know), but there is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights[1], ratified by all 193 members of the United Nations. That is a good place to start. Additionally the UN has more in depth declarations (e.g. Convention on the Rights of the Child[2]; which my native country of Iceland came within 5 minutes of breaking a month ago but the children were safely hid from the authorities who were going to unjustly deport them).
1: https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ind...
2: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CRC.aspx
---
PS. I truly encourage everyone to read the Declaration of Human Rights[1] in their native language. It is such a beautiful read and gives you a sense of shared humanity. It is not that long, and has over 500 translations. In my native language the translation is really clear and easy to follow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you read about how this thread is about making freedom of speech a civil right where its protections extend to private entities?
Of course, that's the topic - perhaps you should read my post, and realize the contradiction your idea creates that I clearly pointed out for you.
Do you think making it illegal for employers to discriminate against their employees based on their race is a violation of the employers’ rights?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Was the NY Post article actually filled with disinformation? Yes. Parroting Russian disinformation during an election campaign because your owners don't like the politics of said disinformation target should be removed. https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/14/biden-campaign-lash... https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/14/us/politics/hunter-biden-... There needs to be more censorship on FB and YouTube which are in addit…
What was the "disinformation" exactly? YouTube has spent the summer censoring doctors because their views didn't match the WHO. The WHO has changed its own views so much that it's now contradicted itself many times, showing how terribly naive Google's policies are on this. Google never used to be naive, but clearly, times have changed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many polls are showing a Biden win is above 80% probability, the House is solidly Dem, and a possible sweep in the Senate. Make of that what you will. Its a fair point that polls missed in 2016. 2020 has kicked the hornet’s nest (rather, the last four years), voter turnout appears to be higher than previous years, and I’d bet an expensive bottle of bourbon current polls align close to what results will be (with model…
Except Millenials are becoming more conservative as they age, and Republicans have way more kids than Democrats: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/republicans-more-kids-democra...
Is this censorship? My understanding is they held it for review, that just seems responsible? Also it seems like the NY Post article is highly suspect, so again, this seems responsible. Especially given echoes of a previous email "bombshell" that proved to be absolutely nothing after the damage was done? I just don't know what people want, they want FB to stop misinformation, but not step on anyone's speech? Also I s…
a. They had the same information as everyone else, so what would they figure out in their ‘review’ that readers wouldn’t? B. It’s really the double standard that is the problem here. If you do it do it for this then do it for everything else, including the myriad stories about Trump that are posted based on ‘rumors’, ‘leaks’, anonymous sources etc. Whether you like Trump or not should not matter if you are honest wit…