4 ms·

If this is true, shouldn't there be consequences for NAACP? Surely accepting cash to weaponize racism is (or should be) illegal?

by umvi 4y ago

tantalor 4y ago
See: 1st Amendment to US Constitution
- brewdad 4y ago
  If the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Where does the road paved with evil intentions go?
  - WarOnPrivacy 4y ago
    The judges consulted; this internet win stands.
  - MikeTheGreat 4y ago
    To the bank, apparently
  - iinnPP 4y ago
    Same road but with shortcuts. I think we have an accepted fallacy in logic where we apply: Assume ignorance before malice. I do agree ignorance is far more probable than malice, but malicious people are incredibly skilled at exploitation of ignorance and they use that skill without missing a beat.
  - idontpost 4y ago
    [dead]
themitigating 4y ago
[flagged]
- saurik 4y ago
  1) The user you are trying so hard to catch in some contradiction seems to be arguing against the control large platforms have to effectively police speech into a box more narrow than the law, and (looking only at the provided snippets) does not seem to claim that the law can't or shouldn't provide some boundaries itself. Like, I don't know this user's opinion on whether truth in advertising laws are legitimate, only about whether it makes sense for Twitter / Facebook to be the ones who get to make the decision. In this case, they are asking why it isn't illegal, not why it isn't randomly being self-limited by the Internet-age speech carriers. 2) Even if the user quoted were "inconsistent" in that way--and because of #1 I don't think it is, but I want to note why I think your comment isn't as smart as you are hoping it is in more detail--one could easily take the comment to be born out of frustration at a world that decides lots of things should be forbidden but somehow not this one, whether coming from a place of sincerity or simply sarcasm: in a world where somehow there are a ton of things people can't say, why can they say this? A lot of times, I see people try to point out hypocrisy in online communication and in fact the two parties are just talking past each other, using the other's attempt to call out hypocrisy as a way to judge their position, ignoring that there are easier explanations.
WarOnPrivacy 4y ago
> If this is true, shouldn't there be consequences for NAACP? It depends on what the goal is. If one seeks an opportunity to punish the NAACP or to chill discussion of racism, focusing just on the NAACP might be a way to do that. Otherwise, if one seeks to end harmful astroturfing[1], then directing punishment (eg: press+fines) at the companies/lobbyists that craft those campaigns seems more effective. As for the non-profits that get duped by bad-faith corporate campaigns, being held up as a hapless corporate stooge should provide all the aversion anyone could want. [1] ref: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/astroturfing/ https://www.techdirt.com/tag/astroturfing/

If this is true, shouldn't there be consequences for NAACP? Surely accepting cash to weaponize racism is (or should be) illegal?

by umvi 4y ago

If this is true, shouldn't there be consequences for NAACP? Surely accepting cash to weaponize racism is (or should be) illegal?

tantalor 4y ago

See: 1st Amendment to US Constitution

brewdad 4y ago
If the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Where does the road paved with evil intentions go?
- WarOnPrivacy 4y ago
  The judges consulted; this internet win stands.
- MikeTheGreat 4y ago
  To the bank, apparently
- iinnPP 4y ago
  Same road but with shortcuts. I think we have an accepted fallacy in logic where we apply: Assume ignorance before malice. I do agree ignorance is far more probable than malice, but malicious people are incredibly skilled at exploitation of ignorance and they use that skill without missing a beat.
- idontpost 4y ago
  [dead]

themitigating 4y ago

[flagged]

saurik 4y ago
1) The user you are trying so hard to catch in some contradiction seems to be arguing against the control large platforms have to effectively police speech into a box more narrow than the law, and (looking only at the provided snippets) does not seem to claim that the law can't or shouldn't provide some boundaries itself. Like, I don't know this user's opinion on whether truth in advertising laws are legitimate, only about whether it makes sense for Twitter / Facebook to be the ones who get to make the decision. In this case, they are asking why it isn't illegal, not why it isn't randomly being self-limited by the Internet-age speech carriers. 2) Even if the user quoted were "inconsistent" in that way--and because of #1 I don't think it is, but I want to note why I think your comment isn't as smart as you are hoping it is in more detail--one could easily take the comment to be born out of frustration at a world that decides lots of things should be forbidden but somehow not this one, whether coming from a place of sincerity or simply sarcasm: in a world where somehow there are a ton of things people can't say, why can they say this? A lot of times, I see people try to point out hypocrisy in online communication and in fact the two parties are just talking past each other, using the other's attempt to call out hypocrisy as a way to judge their position, ignoring that there are easier explanations.

WarOnPrivacy 4y ago

> If this is true, shouldn't there be consequences for NAACP? It depends on what the goal is. If one seeks an opportunity to punish the NAACP or to chill discussion of racism, focusing just on the NAACP might be a way to do that. Otherwise, if one seeks to end harmful astroturfing[1], then directing punishment (eg: press+fines) at the companies/lobbyists that craft those campaigns seems more effective. As for the non-profits that get duped by bad-faith corporate campaigns, being held up as a hapless corporate stooge should provide all the aversion anyone could want. [1] ref: https://www.techdirt.com/tag/astroturfing/ https://www.techdirt.com/tag/astroturfing/