framapotari

8 ms·

61.
by framapotari 4y ago
I think they mean that American news tend to reduce everything down to exactly two sides. Is X a Good Thing or Bad Thing. Are you For or Against Y. Etc.
62.
by framapotari 4y ago
No, the NZ rebate is based on production costs, which doesn't count funds spent on purchasing the rights to a project.
63.
by framapotari 4y ago
Unless you're a student and want to hold up a sign saying "BONG HITS 4 JESUS" outside of school property. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick
64.
by framapotari 4y ago
> In free countries you just broadcast Sure, and anyone who is banned on YouTube can still "just broadcast". Their rights were not harmed in any way. To borrow your analogy, you may have the right to eat pancakes but you don&#x
65.
by framapotari 4y ago
Where is this right to a broadcasting platform to publish anything you wish as long as it is legal enumerated?
66.
by framapotari 4y ago
I don't think a private company choosing what they host on their platform is total unchallenged censorship. With such a vast gap in understanding of terms I don't think discussion will get us anywhere.
67.
by framapotari 4y ago
You don't want private entities making decisions on what content they host on their platforms, but you do want the government to make that decision (host everything) and force those private entities to abide by that decision under thre
68.
by framapotari 4y ago
> Even if abolishing private censorship would cause the scenario you outlined, that wouldn't be worse than the current situation This seems like a statement with nothing behind it but your confidence that it is truth. I believe that
69.
by framapotari 4y ago
Where did the police come in? We were talking about Youtube selecting what to make available on their platform. Is that analogous to the police stifling your speech in your view?
70.
by framapotari 4y ago
> If someone is dying because of a video, the fix is not in removal of the video It might not be 'the' fix but it could be 'a' fix. If your interest is preventing deaths that is.
71.
by framapotari 4y ago
That's one way to read it, but it might just be a related anecdote that the poster wanted to share. Without any explicit mention of blaming modern technology I don't think it's fair to make the assumption that the text is doi
72.
by framapotari 4y ago
I don't think anyone was blaming modern technology, or anything specific, for this nonsense?
73.
by framapotari 4y ago
> For example, if someone is posting about something harmful the videos should remain and the person who does that should face the consequences. Ok, so now a video is up and people are tricked by it and injure themselves in the process.
74.
by framapotari 4y ago
If you're pro-choice then I wouldn't expect you to say that in some cases you'd be offended if the person had a choice.
75.
by framapotari 4y ago
> Having a union form at your own company is an indication that you failed your employees in one way or another. This is absolutely untrue. A kind of propaganda talking point that paints unions like some kind of vicious weapon that you w
76.
by framapotari 4y ago
This is an extremely American -- and misinformed -- view of unions. Where I'm from unions are the default, not formed as a last resort to unjust treatment but a natural counterbalance to corporate/institutional power. Someone sayi