zlacker

>>pseudo+(OP)
Activists want to eat their cake and have it too.

On the one hand they say platforms may exercise “their” free speech by moderating posts or banning people and that’s okay because it’s a private co. and not obliged to be platform for everyone.

Then on the other hand a different company also exercises its free speech (under their own argument) by not moderating posts and now that’s bad because some speech should be moderated and they disagree with those voices.

So like basically they’re for corporate free speech when they agree with the controls but are against it when they disagree with the results.

Just say it. We only want to allow our approved views — we don’t want free speech.

And not only that but they protest free speech but totally don’t walk out when they unscrupulously slurp up data on everyone.

>>mc32+28
I acknowledge Facebook's right to not moderate such things. And support the laws that give Facebook that freedom.

I think it's morally reprehensible and therefore support Facebook's employees movement to work to change Facebook's actions.

These are not contradictory views.

>>joshua+W8
Free speech is morally reprehensible or just speech you disagree with?

If we’re talking about the president’s post, look, there are people on the other side who also post things more incendiary are those reprehensible too? Or is it because we disagree with the poster?

I don’t see how you square FB having that right but simultaneously disagreeing with what happens when they exercise that right.

>>mc32+y9
You don't understand AT ALL how someone could want an organization to make a choice, but not want the government to make that choice for them?

I don't think people should wear socks with sandals, and I will not hesitate to tell them that should I see it. I'll still be the first protesting if the government starts making them take off their socks.

>>Talane+db
Yeah I understand that they want to allow an org to make a choice so long as they agree with that choice. I also understand they’d welcome government regulation so long as it would further their cause... they just don’t say that.

>>mc32+Lb
> Yeah I understand that they want to allow an org to make a choice so long as they agree with that choice.

They are part of the org. They want a say in what that org does. Is this controversial? People want the world to be a certain way and don't want it to be other ways. This is hypocritical?

> I also understand they’d welcome government regulation so long as it would further their cause... they just don’t say that.

Ok, so you're admitting to setting up a literal strawman but we should trust your ability to read the thoughts of hundreds of people.

You're clearly having a normal one.

>>danhar+Cc
> They are part of the org. They want a say in what that org does. Is this controversial?

of course its contraversial. its not free speech if they only say what you want them to, is it?

>>kryoge+pf
There is no place on Earth where you can say literally anything and not have a consequence for it. People who subscribe to such an absolutist free speech make buffoons of themselves.

>>danhar+7i
> People who subscribe to such an absolutist free speech make buffoons of themselves.

good thing no one on this thread has said anything like that, then.