5 ms·

This thread of thought was way more interesting than I assumed from the title: the issue is that some of the same groups that defend Section 230 happen to also

by saurik 7y ago

This thread of thought was way more interesting than I assumed from the title: the issue is that some of the same groups that defend Section 230 happen to also be climate change deniers, and so it becomes this question of the morality of single issue politics (which affects normal people as well making decisions at the poll).

greggman2 7y ago
Sounds like The Guardian is fighting against Section 230. Where is that headline? "Guardian pushes for big media to control all internet communication"
aramanto 7y ago
Totally agree, however the crude reality is that they are directly helping the cause of climate change denial with their funding.
oliwarner 7y ago
I don't think it's controversial. Don't support groups unless you know what they're doing (and you support that). Google either didn't know or didn't care. Neither are acceptable.
- brudgers 7y ago
  Google either didn't know "Google" is also a verb.
  - zenexer 7y ago
    It took me a moment to get that, but oh the irony.
- 16bytes 7y ago
  > Google has defended its contributions, saying that its “collaboration” with organisations such as CEI “does not mean we endorse the organisations’ entire agenda”. So, in your opinion, you should never engage with anybody that you disagree with on any issue? It would seem that you wouldn't have many people left to interact with.
  - zbyte64 7y ago
    Depends on the issue and whether they are actively pushing that issue. Should I be more inclusive to assholes in general? Maybe. Should I give comfort to those that threaten entire societies? You tell me.
  - oliwarner 7y ago
    Engage with and Shovel money into are subtlety different, aren't they? We are talking about lobbying groups and a company with operating profits to rival some GDPs. If Google wanted to support a cause, it can do that without also subsidising climate change deniers.
dv_dt 7y ago
I think it's extremely short sighted to classify climate crisis as "single issue politics". If there was a single issue to impact all other issues than that would be it.

by saurik 7y ago

greggman2 7y ago

Sounds like The Guardian is fighting against Section 230. Where is that headline? "Guardian pushes for big media to control all internet communication"

aramanto 7y ago

Totally agree, however the crude reality is that they are directly helping the cause of climate change denial with their funding.

oliwarner 7y ago

I don't think it's controversial. Don't support groups unless you know what they're doing (and you support that). Google either didn't know or didn't care. Neither are acceptable.

brudgers 7y ago
Google either didn't know "Google" is also a verb.
- zenexer 7y ago
  It took me a moment to get that, but oh the irony.
16bytes 7y ago
> Google has defended its contributions, saying that its “collaboration” with organisations such as CEI “does not mean we endorse the organisations’ entire agenda”. So, in your opinion, you should never engage with anybody that you disagree with on any issue? It would seem that you wouldn't have many people left to interact with.
- zbyte64 7y ago
  Depends on the issue and whether they are actively pushing that issue. Should I be more inclusive to assholes in general? Maybe. Should I give comfort to those that threaten entire societies? You tell me.
- oliwarner 7y ago
  Engage with and Shovel money into are subtlety different, aren't they? We are talking about lobbying groups and a company with operating profits to rival some GDPs. If Google wanted to support a cause, it can do that without also subsidising climate change deniers.

dv_dt 7y ago

I think it's extremely short sighted to classify climate crisis as "single issue politics". If there was a single issue to impact all other issues than that would be it.