5 ms·

Nice. I like that companies are putting their money where their mouth is, and not just doing cheap virtue signalling, like posting a black square on Instagram.

by tomp 6y ago

Nice. I like that companies are putting their money where their mouth is, and not just doing cheap virtue signalling, like posting a black square on Instagram. I think, and hope, however, that Facebook will come out victorious; (1) freedom of speech is important, (2) it's not up to Facebook to be the arbitrer of what's allowed or not (it's up to the law), (3) advertisers need Facebook more than Facebook needs them, and (4) sooner or later companies will learn that SJW-ing is at worst negative (each company could easily come under attack itself) and at best irrelevant (did Pepsi suffer any long-term consequences for the backlash against it a year or 2 ago? Did Gillete gain a lot for publishing its anti-toxic masculinity ad? I doubt it.)

ketzo 6y ago
> (4) sooner or later companies will learn that SJW-ing is at worst negative and at best irrelevant I think this is pretty plainly untrue. If you mean at best irrelevant for the company, that’s certainly not true — friends of mine (and myself!) absolutely make purchasing decisions based on the moral reputation of the company. If you mean for the world, this also seems patently false to me. You can’t tell me that constantly seeing ads featuring gay couples as happy families doesn’t have a measurable impact on normalizing and aiding acceptance.
- dash2 6y ago
  If you mean at best irrelevant for the company, that’s certainly not true — friends of mine (and myself!) absolutely make purchasing decisions based on the moral reputation of the company. Sure, but people like you may make up a small or negligible part of total revenue. And, like the Hollywood actress who was astounded that Nixon won because "nobody I know voted for him", you may overestimate how many people are like you. I've heard the phrase "go woke, go broke" thrown around.
tzs 6y ago
Having the law as the sole arbiter of what is allowed or not would be terrible for free speech. The problem is that we have an overwhelming amount of information being produced, so that people have a hard time evaluating all they are exposed to. Furthermore, we have a lot of people who are just too trusting, or too naive, or too gullible, or perhaps just even stupid. Finally, on top of that we have many information producers who are trying to cause harm ranging from people just doing it for fun to countries trying to undermine each other's stability. A society must find some way to prevent or at least limit those who are intentionally trying to harm people from taking advantage of the overly trusting, naive, gullible, and stupid. The law is a monopoly. Using it to try to address that problem will tend toward overly broad restrictions on speech, with little or no recourse for those whose speech should not have been included. It's far better for it to be handled by Facebook, Twitter, and the rest. If Facebook won't let me talk about some particular topic I do have alternatives. They might not reach as far so I might have to go to some serious effort to contact like minded people and get them to agree to discuss my topic on some other platform--but I can.
- tomp 6y ago
  You're conflating a few issues. Facebook is being boycotted ostensibly for failing to combat hate speech, whereas your comment is mostly written as a argument to censor fake news. Classical mote-and-bailey fallacy. Twitter deleting bots claiming that Obama was born in Africa? Fine. Twitter tagging Trump's warning that any squatters in Washington DC will be treated according to law as "promoting violence against specific groups" or "abusive"? That's quite transparent political bias. Sure, you probably wrote your comment because you oppose Trump on political views and you support Twitter acting against promoting those views, but at least be transparent about it; don't claim that tech giants are just trying to protect the "naive, gullible, stupid" is gas-lighting. Last but not least, do you have any evidence for this? IMO it's mostly just used for journalists to discredit people they disagree with (e.g. Trump or Brexit voters). > we have a lot of people who are just too trusting, or too naive, or too gullible, or perhaps just even stupid.
  - tzs 6y ago
    > You're conflating a few issues. Facebook is being boycotted ostensibly for failing to combat hate speech, whereas your comment is mostly written as a argument to censor fake news. Classical mote-and-bailey fallacy. I didn't realize that when you said the law should be the arbiter of what speech is allowed, not Facebook, that you were just talking about hate speech. I thought you were making an argument about free speech in general. > Sure, you probably wrote your comment because you oppose Trump on political views and you support Twitter acting against promoting those views, but at least be transparent about it; don't claim that tech giants are just trying to protect the "naive, gullible, stupid" is gas-lighting. Actually, none of the examples I had in mind had anything whatsoever to do with Trump as far as I know. I was thinking of flat Earth people, Scientologists, the people who feed kids bleach to ward of autism, and similar.
  - danans 6y ago
    > Trump's warning that any squatters in Washington DC will be treated according to law What is this law against peaceful protest that you cite? And under what statute is the use of violence against those protesters sanctioned by the law?

by tomp 6y ago

ketzo 6y ago

> (4) sooner or later companies will learn that SJW-ing is at worst negative and at best irrelevant I think this is pretty plainly untrue. If you mean at best irrelevant for the company, that’s certainly not true — friends of mine (and myself!) absolutely make purchasing decisions based on the moral reputation of the company. If you mean for the world, this also seems patently false to me. You can’t tell me that constantly seeing ads featuring gay couples as happy families doesn’t have a measurable impact on normalizing and aiding acceptance.

dash2 6y ago
If you mean at best irrelevant for the company, that’s certainly not true — friends of mine (and myself!) absolutely make purchasing decisions based on the moral reputation of the company. Sure, but people like you may make up a small or negligible part of total revenue. And, like the Hollywood actress who was astounded that Nixon won because "nobody I know voted for him", you may overestimate how many people are like you. I've heard the phrase "go woke, go broke" thrown around.

tzs 6y ago

Having the law as the sole arbiter of what is allowed or not would be terrible for free speech. The problem is that we have an overwhelming amount of information being produced, so that people have a hard time evaluating all they are exposed to. Furthermore, we have a lot of people who are just too trusting, or too naive, or too gullible, or perhaps just even stupid. Finally, on top of that we have many information producers who are trying to cause harm ranging from people just doing it for fun to countries trying to undermine each other's stability. A society must find some way to prevent or at least limit those who are intentionally trying to harm people from taking advantage of the overly trusting, naive, gullible, and stupid. The law is a monopoly. Using it to try to address that problem will tend toward overly broad restrictions on speech, with little or no recourse for those whose speech should not have been included. It's far better for it to be handled by Facebook, Twitter, and the rest. If Facebook won't let me talk about some particular topic I do have alternatives. They might not reach as far so I might have to go to some serious effort to contact like minded people and get them to agree to discuss my topic on some other platform--but I can.

tomp 6y ago
You're conflating a few issues. Facebook is being boycotted ostensibly for failing to combat hate speech, whereas your comment is mostly written as a argument to censor fake news. Classical mote-and-bailey fallacy. Twitter deleting bots claiming that Obama was born in Africa? Fine. Twitter tagging Trump's warning that any squatters in Washington DC will be treated according to law as "promoting violence against specific groups" or "abusive"? That's quite transparent political bias. Sure, you probably wrote your comment because you oppose Trump on political views and you support Twitter acting against promoting those views, but at least be transparent about it; don't claim that tech giants are just trying to protect the "naive, gullible, stupid" is gas-lighting. Last but not least, do you have any evidence for this? IMO it's mostly just used for journalists to discredit people they disagree with (e.g. Trump or Brexit voters). > we have a lot of people who are just too trusting, or too naive, or too gullible, or perhaps just even stupid.
- tzs 6y ago
  > You're conflating a few issues. Facebook is being boycotted ostensibly for failing to combat hate speech, whereas your comment is mostly written as a argument to censor fake news. Classical mote-and-bailey fallacy. I didn't realize that when you said the law should be the arbiter of what speech is allowed, not Facebook, that you were just talking about hate speech. I thought you were making an argument about free speech in general. > Sure, you probably wrote your comment because you oppose Trump on political views and you support Twitter acting against promoting those views, but at least be transparent about it; don't claim that tech giants are just trying to protect the "naive, gullible, stupid" is gas-lighting. Actually, none of the examples I had in mind had anything whatsoever to do with Trump as far as I know. I was thinking of flat Earth people, Scientologists, the people who feed kids bleach to ward of autism, and similar.
- danans 6y ago
  > Trump's warning that any squatters in Washington DC will be treated according to law What is this law against peaceful protest that you cite? And under what statute is the use of violence against those protesters sanctioned by the law?