3 ms·
It's not about who's in the right. It's about whether this law, as it plays out, acts in the best interest of the people. We can't let our impression of how th
by ysavir 3y ago
It's not about who's in the right. It's about whether this law, as it plays out, acts in the best interest of the people.
We can't let our impression of how things should play out be determined by asking which self-serving powerful player deserves the right of way in policy making.
- robertlagrant 3y agoI don't know where you're getting that from. I didn't mention asking who should get the right of way. Have you not just rephrased my "right" and "wrong" as "how things should play out". I'm not sure why someone would do that.
- roflc0ptic 3y ago"right" and "wrong" are normative statements: quite literally they're statements about how things should be. IMO it's a reasonable read of your comment
- robertlagrant 3y agoI wasn't saying who should get right of way. Just because right and wrong can imply the word "should" in a hypergeneric sense doesn't mean I was talking about right of way.
- roflc0ptic 3y agoI believe you! I just don't understand what you meant, then.
- ysavir 3y agoYou're right. You weren't speaking with that intent and I brought that context into it. My apologies there. I think I was responding to the idea that because the government was acting in self-serving ways, that we were necessarily cheering on Facebook, and that what facebook is doing is "standing up to...corruption", when their own efforts are a corruption of a different kind. The phrasing there made me feel like I was being made to choose--that I was either cheering for facebook or for their rivals in this situation--and I didn't feel that that choice was accurate. It's possible to think that both parties are in the wrong, even if they are on opposite sides here. Your follow up post reinforced that feeling as it maintained the idea that one party or the other was in the right, but that post was also a direct response to what I said, and not necessarily a continuation of what you had posted earlier. So by continuing that thread I reinforced my own misinterpretation. I will try to better understand my own reactions to people's posts in the future, and be better in responding in the appropriate context, not with a shift.
- robertlagrant 3y agoAbsolutely not a problem! I was just slightly surprised (-:
- pluc 3y agoAnything that gets people off Facebook is in the best interest of the people
- dmix 3y agoMost Canadians are obsessed with American news anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if the bulk of people barely notice. If I was an American/Euro/South American news org I'd be staffing up my Canadian journos. Any org out of reach of the backroom dealing Ottawa private school clique can probably hire some local freelancers and fill the void by the end of the year.
- ImprovedSilence 3y agoI mean, sure Facebook has its bad points, but anyone who thinks that this is true clearly has no idea how hard it was to stay connected to so many people pre-Facebook. And keeping up on those connections really does have value.
- nonethewiser 3y agoI dont use facebook anymore and think life is better without it so I dont even care about the merits you listed. Even still, it doesnt mean we should legislate this opinion on others. Regardless, Canada isn’t protecting people from facebook. They didn’t ban news sharing, they just wanted to give their media companies a cut.
- nonethewiser 3y agoAnything that stops sugar intake is in the best of interest of the people.
- nonethewiser 3y agoClearly no limits on sharing news is the best policy.
- robertlagrant 3y agoJust train an AI on the news and publish a summary :)