5 ms·
A right to free speech, and freedom from employer discrimination due to political beliefs.
by uoaei 6y ago
A right to free speech, and freedom from employer discrimination due to political beliefs.
- bobbylarrybobby 6y ago“My employer is doing something wrong” is not a political belief
- thundergolfer 6y agoCan you elaborate?
- mc32 6y agoNot the OP but I’d say reporting a company for breaking the law isn’t political even though laws stem from the political process.
- thundergolfer 6y agoThanks for reply. I can see where you're coming from I think, but reporting or not reporting the law being broken is political exactly because, as you say, laws stem from the political process, but also because law enforcement is a socio-political activity. I do see what though, as it's supposed to be accepted as a basic premise of society that we set laws and follow them, and all accept the responsibility of ensuring that those laws are followed.
- dukeofdoom 6y agoGoogle manipulates search results to favour certain political beliefs. Censors people on youtube for expressing counter view points. And quite likely has enough power to skew elections. Plenty of what they do wrong is political in nature. And should be open to criticism.
- NikolaeVarius 6y agoI seem to remember Google being criticized for having a disproportionate amount of left leaning employees pushing a left agenda while simultaneously being criticized for showing/pushing right/far right content on youtube. So which is it?
- Viliam1234 6y agoCould it be both? The left-wing employees may have the political power within the company, but the algorithm maximizing clicks could end up recommending right-wing content because more users click on it.
- NikolaeVarius 6y agoThe original claim was that Google uses their political power to push leftish views and censor right/far right views, so that particular claim is not consistent
- throwaway3699 6y agoYou can push left wing views while still having more people choose right wing recommendations. There's a kind of feedback loop which pushes people to different viewpoints.
- Viliam1234 6y agoDifferent politics can correlate with different web usage. Either directly, e.g. because of different type of censorship on different websites, or indirectly e.g. because politics correlates with social class, and social class correlates with web usage. So maybe YouTube is relatively more popular with right wing, and Twitter with left wing... which would make the average YouTube user more right-wing than the average of the population (and the average Twitter user more left-wing that the average of the population). It could even be some statistical artifact. Maybe the audience is divided 50:50, but e.g. left-wing users are more likely to produce their own videos. That would mean that right-wing videos have on average more views per video. It could be an artifact of censorship itself: suppose that e.g. extreme right-wing is 5% of population, and they produce 5% of videos. But half of those videos are removed by YouTube. If they keep using the same search terms, the surviving videos will have twice more views per video. And if then YouTube moderators freak out and delete half of those, the views of the remaining half will double again, feeding a spiral of hysteric moderation and extreme popularity of the few surviving fringe videos. (And it doesn't help if the content-agnostic algorithm predicts -- correctly -- that the popularity of these videos is likely to skyrocket.)
- ineedasername 6y agoUnfortunately, free speech protections are generally to protect you from government action that may suppress speech, while private entities have a lot more discretion.
- oblio 6y agoFree speech is almost purely limited to interactions with a state. Why are people trying to shoehorn it into everything?
- vorpalhex 6y agoFree speech is a moral value. The First Amendment is limited to the Government.
- rayiner 6y agoWe also learned about “First Amendment values” in law school. This idea that there is no moral component associated with the First Amendment is a new and weird one.
- tptacek 6y agoOne of the first things the founders did was to pass the Sedition Act of 1798, so whatever the moral component of the First Amendment is, it wasn't as clear as it's made out to be today.
- vorpalhex 6y agoBill of Rights was 1791. That's like judging Obama era policies based on Trump changing them.
- tptacek 6y agoI don't understand that you're trying to say, but of course my point is that the authors and ratifiers of the bill of rights immediately turned around and abrogated them.
- idlewords 6y agoIt was the Alien and Sedition act and closely tied to a fear of foreigners, and of national collapse in general, before the country had had time to gel. You can squint and hold it up to the light and see it as a principled diagreement over free expression, but that's pretty ahistorical. The important point here is that limits on speech and free expression in American discourse have traditionally gone hand in hand with a fear of foreign influence. If anything, that gives more of a moral edge to the argument over free speech, not less.
- david38 6y agoAs the cancel culture supports love to point out, freedom of speech is freedom from government persecution, not freedom from consequences.
- SuoDuanDao 6y agoI'm a little conflicted on this one. On the one hand, it seems like a clear case of 'live by the sword, die by the sword'. On the other hand, maybe a bunch of gun-toting conspiracy theorists speaking up for these professional ethicists would be the hand of friendship that could breach a deep but narrow chasm in public life. But realistically, I imagine if a gun-toting conspiracy theorist showed up, someone like the article subject would scapegoat them for another month of comfortable employment, so she's probably exactly where she needs to be.