zlacker

>>claude+(OP)
I'd totally support the employees if they got fired or even cautioned for exercising their free speech rights. Amazon needs to get penalized if that's the case. Where it gets into the gray zone is when employees misuse company property and time to engage in activism. Like the Google Employee who used her access privileges to distribute messages supporting her position.

Personally I think we should draw a clear line between these two types of actions. When we don't do that, we weaken legitimate free speech.

>>jeswin+fi
You are in confusion, there is no free speech issue; the First Amendment protects the free speech from the government, nothing else.

Just to be very clear: I am in no way agreeing with Amazon, just correcting a confusion about the applicability of the US Constitution and amendments.

>>Adrian+Gi
That sort of conflation is defensible when someone actually says "First Amendment", but the parent was clearly talking about the fundumental human right to free speech that that first amendment imperfectly protects, not about a particular legal establishment of it.

>>a13692+PF
Amazon isn’t threatening the men with guns, so their natural right to free speech isn’t violated.

>>burrow+VK
Threatening a person with death is not the only way to violate a natural right. To take this view might arbitrarily limit one's ability to analyze the nature and impact of the censorship being done by social media.

>>jsheve+3e3
> Threatening a person with death is not the only way to violate a natural right.

I agree. Discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22873029

What is your framework for analyzing natural rights violations?

>>burrow+Hf3
I strive to treat all frameworks skeptically (aside from the meta-framework of logical consistency). I see two notions of 'rights' in common usage, one (which you call a natural right) is predicated on personal liberty and the other predicated on 'ought to have'. Both are invented concepts. In practice, the first results in people taking increased responsibility for their own lives, increased empowerment, increased freedom. The other concept of rights, in practice, generally has opposite effects.

Edit: In some cases 'ought to have' is nothing more than 'want to have'.

>>jsheve+2i3
> I strive to treat all frameworks skeptically (aside from the meta-framework of logical consistency).

Agreed. Describe your thought process for deciding whether someone’s natural rights have been violated.

> I see two notions of 'rights' in common usage, one (which you call a natural right) is predicated on personal liberty and the other predicated on 'ought to have'.

Group A uses the ‘ought to have’ framework to rationalize co-opting the state in their conspiracy to plunder group B.

> Both are invented concepts.

All concepts are invented. I choose to use concepts that most accurately map “non-invented” reality.

> In practice, the first results in people taking increased responsibility for their own lives, increased empowerment, increased freedom. The other concept of rights, in practice, generally has opposite effects.

I agree with this analysis, but it’s not how I arrive at the ethical imperative to protect natural rights.