4 ms·
> Non-human entities aren't entitled to 1st amendment protections. The vast majority of speech that needs to remain protected for speech to remain meaningfully
by Matticus_Rex 2y ago
> Non-human entities aren't entitled to 1st amendment protections.
The vast majority of speech that needs to remain protected for speech to remain meaningfully free happens through non-human entities. Removing that protection is an absolutely insane step.
- ethbr1 2y agoHappens via, but starts with individuals (or should!). What we have now is the worst of both worlds: - Individual speech is censored at whim by non-government platforms that are unavoidable. - While giant companies are empowered to speak anything they want (speaking as the company). That doesn't seem ass-backwards? We should be prioritizing individual speech / power, and disempowering corporate speech.
- MichaelZuo 2y agoSays who? Even the aspiring indie filmmaker wants limited liability not unlimited liability.
- ethbr1 2y agoThat's backwards reasoning though. If limited liability is a concern... we can just create that for individuals. I'm not convinced that Meta also needs the right to do whatever it wants, for the sake of aspiring indie filmmakers.
- whimsicalism 2y agowhat if two people want to make a movie together?
- ethbr1 2y agoThen we create some kind of liability for that situation. And then we figure out at what assemblage scale multiple people stop being a collection of individuals and start being something fundamentally different. LLC et al. liability didn't just exist in a tablet given to humanity from god. It was designed for a purpose, and we could design the same thing for people if we wanted, instead of granting legal corporations individuals' rights.
- Matticus_Rex 2y ago"If limited liability is a concern... we can just create that for individuals." > laughs in lawyer
- Matticus_Rex 2y agoNon-government platforms that are "unavoidable," except that most people successfully avoid them?