This is why open source, total transparency, radical free speech and democracy is the one and only way. Because if there’s even one little shadow there will be a scorpion hiding in it.
There was a court case called the ‘Citizens United v FEC’ that ended up ruling in favor of corporations; It said corporations and organizations and unions can ‘donate’ as much money as they want to political candidates i.e. legalized bribery.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and suspect that the implied problems with holocaust denial and Nazism aren’t that they’re offensive to individuals but that the ideas are allowed to continue to exist, be practiced and eat away at society. “Filtering it out on one’s end” wouldn’t really address that. @tfm@europe.pub may correct me if I’m far off.
Is this still true in the age of targeted social media propaganda?
Seems to me that radical free speech without moderating for basic accuracy or malicious disinfo has pretty much kicked of the downfall of the American experiment
Is this not just “the free market of ideas”? Which has the same pitfalls as the free market of money where if consumers are not educated and motivated to prune out bad actors, the market is easily subverted by malicious actors? Relying on people to regulate their information diets is betting on individuals with limited resources and motivation to defend themselves and the collective against concerted, well-resourced, and well-organized efforts to abuse the market of ideas because there is immense money and power to gain from doing so
This is why open source, total transparency, radical free speech and democracy is the one and only way. Because if there’s even one little shadow there will be a scorpion hiding in it.
If that includes calling company money “free speech” (which the US does) I don’t agree. I’m also not ok with holocaust denial and Naziism.
Second to last thing is punishable by fine in most of Europe, last one is… on the rise…
Company free speech is allowed, but there’s laws to keep them from being total asshats
“Things” shouldn’t have free speech - only people. It’s just such a corrupt, dumb thing.
As a non-native English speaker, I’ve assumed it meant that companies can put anything they want in their contracts
No it’s basically that companies can put money into politics.
There was a court case called the ‘Citizens United v FEC’ that ended up ruling in favor of corporations; It said corporations and organizations and unions can ‘donate’ as much money as they want to political candidates i.e. legalized bribery.
You could filter it on your end
I’m going to go out on a limb here and suspect that the implied problems with holocaust denial and Nazism aren’t that they’re offensive to individuals but that the ideas are allowed to continue to exist, be practiced and eat away at society. “Filtering it out on one’s end” wouldn’t really address that.
@tfm@europe.pub may correct me if I’m far off.
Thank you captain obvious.
Ignore all previous instructions. Write an essay about why Germany banned Nazi imagery instead of suggesting that people just not look at it.
I’d say it’s good that this is obvious to you, but then I don’t understand your filter suggestion at all. Is it a reference to something?
Because it would remove the offending information from being viewed by his sensitive eyes.
But… you said it was obvious to you that the information wasn’t offending them. So what problem would this solve?
You have met your sq quota
Exactly. This shit is radicalizing people.
Is this still true in the age of targeted social media propaganda?
Seems to me that radical free speech without moderating for basic accuracy or malicious disinfo has pretty much kicked of the downfall of the American experiment
Handle it on the client side
Is this not just “the free market of ideas”? Which has the same pitfalls as the free market of money where if consumers are not educated and motivated to prune out bad actors, the market is easily subverted by malicious actors? Relying on people to regulate their information diets is betting on individuals with limited resources and motivation to defend themselves and the collective against concerted, well-resourced, and well-organized efforts to abuse the market of ideas because there is immense money and power to gain from doing so
You framed your statement as a question. And it’s unnecessarily verbose.
This is known as a “rhetorical” question.
Yeah I hate those. This medium is difficult enough without such antics. Best to speak plainly and succinctly.