3 ms·
Sorry to chime in, but that law just says they have to disclose it, not that it has to follow a certain ideology. That is not thought police IMO. There is no ri
by atoav 3y ago
Sorry to chime in, but that law just says they have to disclose it, not that it has to follow a certain ideology. That is not thought police IMO. There is no right for social media corps to not have to disclose how they moderate their content. That isn't infringing on their free speech, just like you having to file your taxes isn't infringing on yours. And if there are hate speech laws, they have to of course comply with them.
That being said, tobacco manufacturers have been forced by law to adjust the designs of their packaging in many parts of the world (including showing full scale pictures that cover everything else). I am not a big fan of governments, but to me even that isn't thought police — it is a governments job to weigh different rights against each other. In this case the tobacco manufacturers right to choose their own packaging design has been given lower priority than the health iasues it causes within society. We expect governments to make these weighing deciaions all the time.
Now maybe it is because I am a European, but:
- A company having the right to free speech is a perversion of the purpose of the rights these laws were originally intended to protect. But for the sake of discussion let's assume they shall have that right
- A government could still weigh the rights of X against those whose rights are harmed by the speech of X. Just because you have free speech doesn't mean it trumps any other right in all circumstances, especially if we are talking about the company of one of the richest persons on earth (and quite frankly: a society where this was the case would be very distopic). A government has to weigh the rights of a corporation with the impact that corporation has on society. That is part of why we have governments.
So maybe the point where we disagree is that I literally believe that e.g. a person who has been born with a dark skin has the right not to be discriminated against — and that it is the job of a government to ensure that these rights are not violated by others. Not at all cost of course and naturally that right has to be weighed against other rights, but with great power comes great responsibility. I'd rather live in a nation where the rights of the individual are taken more seriously than those of corporations, but hey, billionairs in a pickle and such.
- nemo44x 3y ago> So maybe the point where we disagree is that I literally believe that e.g. a person who has been born with a dark skin has the right not to be discriminated against — and that it is the job of a government to ensure that these rights are not violated by others. You don't have a right to not be offended. If someone wants to write an op-ed about why a certain group of people are awful and someone wants to publish that then so be it. The government's job isn't to make sure someone has hurt feelings. Everyone else will condemn them and they'll be marginalized for it and life will go on. Now, if someone wanted to open a public business and not allow a certain group of people allowed in to shop then the government can step in. That's not speech but rather discrimination.
- atoav 3y agoRacism is not about being offended. If that is your idea of the whole thing, good riddance. Get a grip, man.
- nemo44x 3y agoIn terms of saying racist things, it is. It’s just words. Despicable words but just words none the less. I’m not saying being offended is wrong but rather you have no right to not be offended. If someone wants to stand on the street corner and spew racist comment after racist comment it’s their right to do it. They might get beat up or protested or exposed for the community to judge and shun socially, but it’s their right however disputable it is.