4 ms·

It's the responsibility of all of us to protect civil rights.

jedberg 8y ago
Like I said in my post, I think they should, but not through banning use of their product. They should be protecting civil rights through lobbying.
- jjulius 8y ago
  So you think they should protect civil rights through lobbying while simultaneously profiting off of the erosion of civil rights? What about leading by example?
  - jedberg 8y ago
    Telling Amazon to lead by example is about as fair as telling Warren Buffet to "just pay more taxes then" when he complains that rich people don't pay enough taxes. It doesn't work when only one player does it. That's why Amazon should lobby, and that's why Buffet spends his time lobbying while simultaneously employing accountants to reduce his tax bill.
    - Larrikin 8y ago
      Why is the argument that they must profit off it while legal while also lobbying against it? Why can't they lobby against it and not profit from the erosion of our civil rights?
      - drankula3 8y ago
        Large corporations have a Board of Directors composed of people voted into the position by shareholders. This means that large corporations need for the most part to do what shareholders want, or else they will be voted out. There's also a matter of business competition. If Amazon stops worrying about profits, leverage, and expansion, that leaves areas that competitors can move in _within their domain_. This is why it seems all the big organizations behave sociopathicly: it's required to be on top. Laws are designed to create limits on corporations to explicitly express how big businesses can behave, and it's not the businesses fault that those laws haven't been keeping up with the times.
- smogcutter 8y ago
  Kant would like a word with you about moral imperatives. If you think something is unethical, then facilitating it for a profit is also unethical. If you don't think it's unethical, fine, but you don't get to have it both ways.
  - jedberg 8y ago
    I don't think using facial recognition is inherently unethical. I think what you do with it may be unethical. That's why government regulations would be much more effective here.
- throwaway4job 8y ago
  That is an absurdly stupid argument. Makes sense that a god-awful world-worsening piece of shit like you would make it. Good people should look at you and know, instantly, that they're on the wrong side of history if they agree with you for even a half a second.
PKop 8y ago
What about the civil rights of American citizens who don't want their votes and social services diluted by illegal immigrants unlawfully entering into the country? No, illegal immigrants voting directly is not what I mean. But their children vote. Just so happens the fastest demographic growth especially in the lower border states is the same as those which are immigrating illegally. They vote 70% for liberal policies and politicians. Is this fair to American citizens who may ideologically oppose these voters but can't illegally import their own votes to keep pace?
- bognition 8y ago
  Are you suggesting that it’s not fair for individuals to vote who have a constitutional right to vote? Instead of attacking the constitution I’d suggest critiquing the parties (and their policies) in power.
  - PKop 8y ago
    Why do you want to cite the legality of 2nd generation voters voting, but not cit the illegality of their parents coming here? It's not fair to embrace law breaking when the consequences disenfranchise 1 party, 1 ideology, along w/ the pressure it applies to wages and social services demands. I'm quite simply stating, it is unfair to turn your back on law breaking that may benefit some people (and of course certainly benefits the immigrant) while harming others, who happen to be citizens the law is designed to protect. Can you articulate to me why you think we even have a law against illegal immigration, before you dismiss my point of view out of hand?
    - jedberg 8y ago
      > it is unfair to turn your back on law breaking that may benefit some people (and of course certainly benefits the immigrant) while harming others Who exactly is harmed by someone coming to this country? They don't qualify for any benefits paid for by tax dollars. They do however pay taxes. So in fact they are a net positive to anyone who is already here. I'm curious how you think they harm a citizen just by being here.

Like I said in my post, I think they should, but not through banning use of their product. They should be protecting civil rights through lobbying.

jjulius 8y ago
So you think they should protect civil rights through lobbying while simultaneously profiting off of the erosion of civil rights? What about leading by example?
- jedberg 8y ago
  Telling Amazon to lead by example is about as fair as telling Warren Buffet to "just pay more taxes then" when he complains that rich people don't pay enough taxes. It doesn't work when only one player does it. That's why Amazon should lobby, and that's why Buffet spends his time lobbying while simultaneously employing accountants to reduce his tax bill.
  - Larrikin 8y ago
    Why is the argument that they must profit off it while legal while also lobbying against it? Why can't they lobby against it and not profit from the erosion of our civil rights?
    - drankula3 8y ago
      Large corporations have a Board of Directors composed of people voted into the position by shareholders. This means that large corporations need for the most part to do what shareholders want, or else they will be voted out. There's also a matter of business competition. If Amazon stops worrying about profits, leverage, and expansion, that leaves areas that competitors can move in _within their domain_. This is why it seems all the big organizations behave sociopathicly: it's required to be on top. Laws are designed to create limits on corporations to explicitly express how big businesses can behave, and it's not the businesses fault that those laws haven't been keeping up with the times.
smogcutter 8y ago
Kant would like a word with you about moral imperatives. If you think something is unethical, then facilitating it for a profit is also unethical. If you don't think it's unethical, fine, but you don't get to have it both ways.
- jedberg 8y ago
  I don't think using facial recognition is inherently unethical. I think what you do with it may be unethical. That's why government regulations would be much more effective here.
throwaway4job 8y ago
That is an absurdly stupid argument. Makes sense that a god-awful world-worsening piece of shit like you would make it. Good people should look at you and know, instantly, that they're on the wrong side of history if they agree with you for even a half a second.

PKop 8y ago

What about the civil rights of American citizens who don't want their votes and social services diluted by illegal immigrants unlawfully entering into the country? No, illegal immigrants voting directly is not what I mean. But their children vote. Just so happens the fastest demographic growth especially in the lower border states is the same as those which are immigrating illegally. They vote 70% for liberal policies and politicians. Is this fair to American citizens who may ideologically oppose these voters but can't illegally import their own votes to keep pace?

bognition 8y ago
Are you suggesting that it’s not fair for individuals to vote who have a constitutional right to vote? Instead of attacking the constitution I’d suggest critiquing the parties (and their policies) in power.
- PKop 8y ago
  Why do you want to cite the legality of 2nd generation voters voting, but not cit the illegality of their parents coming here? It's not fair to embrace law breaking when the consequences disenfranchise 1 party, 1 ideology, along w/ the pressure it applies to wages and social services demands. I'm quite simply stating, it is unfair to turn your back on law breaking that may benefit some people (and of course certainly benefits the immigrant) while harming others, who happen to be citizens the law is designed to protect. Can you articulate to me why you think we even have a law against illegal immigration, before you dismiss my point of view out of hand?
  - jedberg 8y ago
    > it is unfair to turn your back on law breaking that may benefit some people (and of course certainly benefits the immigrant) while harming others Who exactly is harmed by someone coming to this country? They don't qualify for any benefits paid for by tax dollars. They do however pay taxes. So in fact they are a net positive to anyone who is already here. I'm curious how you think they harm a citizen just by being here.