Platforms like Facebook thrive on controversy. Controversy drives engagement, which drives revenue. Reducing controversy is the last thing they would ever try to do.
And no one (other than the usual army of Apple haters) could argue with a straight face that Apple itself would do this for anything other than a good cause.
I haven't seen anyone arguing that. The problem is, who gets to decide which causes are good?
is it so much worse that photos of other crimes, such as murders or beatings, which are perfectly legal to posess?
If people are committing murders or beatings to sell the photos of them then no. If not, then that's the difference. I'm not saying the way we're tackling it is the right way, but the focus on the photos and videos is because in some cases the abuse is being done in order to produce the photos and videos.
Re: Re: Re: This is actually a few scoops deeper...
If it concerns BDS then their own mission statement should serve.
I know it was way up the page, but the criticisms I was asking about are that it is anti-semitic and has links to terrorist organizations. Unsurprisingly, the person making those claims did not reply. I assume you were thinking of something else, because their web site says this:
"BDS is an inclusive, anti-racist human rights movement that is opposed on principle to all forms of discrimination, including anti-semitism and Islamophobia."
Should the state be compelled to support a business that supports the goals of the KKK?
Unless there is a carve out for inciting violence or something along those lines, yes, as far as I know. Racist speech is protected speech. KKK and Nazi propaganda has the same protections as anything else (again subject to the limitations I mentioned).
I’m failing to understand how a purchasing decision is suppression.
Because it's retaliation for speech. How is this difficult? Like I can punch you in the face for punching me in the face, but I can't punch you in the face because I don't like your face. A government can stop doing business with a company because the company isn't doing a good job (for example) but not because the government doesn't like things the company is saying.
If you fail to understand the impact of the tariff of abominations there’s nothing I can do besides say go study pre 1945 America history.
"The tariff was replaced in 1833 and the crisis ended."
How is not shopping at a particular company because you don’t agree with their speech any less protected because the buyer is a large organs like a state or county board or township or even a community association decision on what beverage company is chosen for the employee vending machines?
It is either a state actor or not. If it is, it must not use its power to suppress speech. If it is not, there is no such restriction. That's what the first amendment means.
That’s exactly what I said. It still belongs to the county.
Yes, which has nothing to do with corporations. By the way, I asked for a citation for your claim that states are corporations. Did you forget, or were you hoping I would?
But it was not the only one.
Without slavery, there is no civil war. It is the reason the south seceded, and the reason the north fought. Would there have been some minor conflicts over other issues, sure. But not a war.
The ultimate question is does the federal constitutional right of free speech and ban of governmental censorship, disallow a state, as a representation of a popular voting group, from its own right to protest based upon the population?
No, the question is whether it disallows the state from punishing private actors for acts of protest. I would have thought the answer is obvious but I guess not.
USA creates “States” which are legally considered incorporated businesses.
Citation for this?
This is why the term “unincorporated x county” exists.
That is a different meaning of the term. It means the land has not been incorporated, or made part of, a city/town/etc. It does not mean it isn't a corporation.
If the US government has the right to boycott (eg Cuba) should not the states?
As far as I know a state has the right to not do business with another country. Other countries are not protected by the US Constitution. As far as I know a state does not have the right to not do business with a private entity because of that entity's constitutionally protected activities or status. For example, a state cannot choose not to do business with a company because it is owned by a black person, or a woman.
This very question was one of many issues that lead to the civil war.
What led to the civil war was the southern states wanted to continue owning people, and the northern states decided that was no longer ok.
IANAL either, but generally the state cannot use a third party to implement something that would be unconstitutional to do itself. That's my understanding anyway.
The state, beholden to its voters, has the right to choose its expenditures.
I thought of something - what would you think if a state passed a law that said it would not do business with any company that publicly criticized the governor of that state in any way. Would you see a first amendment issue there?
Having experience with the company / product / service. A review about a company based on reading about them in the news is not legitimate in my opinion, and apparently these review companies agree.
No, fundamentally the state is a government which must not violate the first amendment.
"The American Civil Liberties Union has challenged the constitutionality of several states’ laws as violations of freedom of expression. In Texas, it represents two university students who want to judge high school tournaments, a freelance writer and a reporter. These individuals were required to sign a certification that they are not engaged in boycotts of Israel or settlements or forgo opportunities and lose income.
US federal courts issued preliminary injunctions blocking the enforcement of anti-boycott laws in Kansas and Arizona following similar suits, leading legislators in both states to scale back their laws. An Arkansas federal court dismissed an analogous challenge to its similar law, which has been appealed. The Texas case remains pending."
This hasn't been settled, but there's a clear first amendment case here.
As governor he can decide such situations as to how the state handles its own business.
Without infringing on anyone's constitutional rights, yes. Using state power to retaliate against someone for their speech is a classic first amendment violation.
On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible To Do Well: Series About Antisemitism Removed By Instagram For Being Antisemetic
Re: Faulty premise
Platforms like Facebook thrive on controversy. Controversy drives engagement, which drives revenue. Reducing controversy is the last thing they would ever try to do.
On the post: Content Moderation At Scale Is Impossible To Do Well: Series About Antisemitism Removed By Instagram For Being Antisemetic
Re: Dumb
Where should they have posted it instead that it could have gotten a large audience?
On the post: Apple Undermines Its Famous Security 'For The Children'
Re:
I haven't seen anyone arguing that. The problem is, who gets to decide which causes are good?
On the post: Apple Undermines Its Famous Security 'For The Children'
Re:
If people are committing murders or beatings to sell the photos of them then no. If not, then that's the difference. I'm not saying the way we're tackling it is the right way, but the focus on the photos and videos is because in some cases the abuse is being done in order to produce the photos and videos.
On the post: Israel, Ice Cream, Trademarks: This Year's Dumbest Controversy Results In Trademark Skullduggery
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: This is actually a few scoops deeper...
Yes, among other reasons that kind of thing is why I wanted to know what that person was relying on (if anything) to make those claims.
On the post: Cities Looking To Dump ShotSpotter Since It's Barely More Useful Than Doing Nothing At All
Re: Re: Re: False positive rate
Is 10 times higher than the company claimed. Unless that weird percent symbol makes that mean 0.5%.
72/584 is .12, or a 12% false positive rate. As mentioned, 25 times worse than advertised.
That would be a 0.5% false positive rate, which is what was claimed but not what happened.
From the other reply:
Your math is not only wrong but getting worse. 5% is 5/100 or 1 in 20.
On the post: Israel, Ice Cream, Trademarks: This Year's Dumbest Controversy Results In Trademark Skullduggery
Re: Re: Re: This is actually a few scoops deeper...
I know it was way up the page, but the criticisms I was asking about are that it is anti-semitic and has links to terrorist organizations. Unsurprisingly, the person making those claims did not reply. I assume you were thinking of something else, because their web site says this:
"BDS is an inclusive, anti-racist human rights movement that is opposed on principle to all forms of discrimination, including anti-semitism and Islamophobia."
On the post: Israel, Ice Cream, Trademarks: This Year's Dumbest Controversy Results In Trademark Skullduggery
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Then go get together your primary sources and edit the wikipedia article.
On the post: Israel, Ice Cream, Trademarks: This Year's Dumbest Controversy Results In Trademark Skullduggery
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For some reason you keep omitting the part about those actions being protected by the Constitution.
On the post: Israel, Ice Cream, Trademarks: This Year's Dumbest Controversy Results In Trademark Skullduggery
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Unless there is a carve out for inciting violence or something along those lines, yes, as far as I know. Racist speech is protected speech. KKK and Nazi propaganda has the same protections as anything else (again subject to the limitations I mentioned).
On the post: Israel, Ice Cream, Trademarks: This Year's Dumbest Controversy Results In Trademark Skullduggery
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because it's retaliation for speech. How is this difficult? Like I can punch you in the face for punching me in the face, but I can't punch you in the face because I don't like your face. A government can stop doing business with a company because the company isn't doing a good job (for example) but not because the government doesn't like things the company is saying.
"The tariff was replaced in 1833 and the crisis ended."
Tell me again how that caused the war in 1861.
On the post: Israel, Ice Cream, Trademarks: This Year's Dumbest Controversy Results In Trademark Skullduggery
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It is either a state actor or not. If it is, it must not use its power to suppress speech. If it is not, there is no such restriction. That's what the first amendment means.
Yes, which has nothing to do with corporations. By the way, I asked for a citation for your claim that states are corporations. Did you forget, or were you hoping I would?
Without slavery, there is no civil war. It is the reason the south seceded, and the reason the north fought. Would there have been some minor conflicts over other issues, sure. But not a war.
On the post: Israel, Ice Cream, Trademarks: This Year's Dumbest Controversy Results In Trademark Skullduggery
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, the question is whether it disallows the state from punishing private actors for acts of protest. I would have thought the answer is obvious but I guess not.
Citation for this?
That is a different meaning of the term. It means the land has not been incorporated, or made part of, a city/town/etc. It does not mean it isn't a corporation.
As far as I know a state has the right to not do business with another country. Other countries are not protected by the US Constitution. As far as I know a state does not have the right to not do business with a private entity because of that entity's constitutionally protected activities or status. For example, a state cannot choose not to do business with a company because it is owned by a black person, or a woman.
What led to the civil war was the southern states wanted to continue owning people, and the northern states decided that was no longer ok.
On the post: Israel, Ice Cream, Trademarks: This Year's Dumbest Controversy Results In Trademark Skullduggery
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
IANAL either, but generally the state cannot use a third party to implement something that would be unconstitutional to do itself. That's my understanding anyway.
On the post: Israel, Ice Cream, Trademarks: This Year's Dumbest Controversy Results In Trademark Skullduggery
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, so direct suppression of political speech using government power is not a first amendment issue. OK.
On the post: Israel, Ice Cream, Trademarks: This Year's Dumbest Controversy Results In Trademark Skullduggery
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I thought of something - what would you think if a state passed a law that said it would not do business with any company that publicly criticized the governor of that state in any way. Would you see a first amendment issue there?
On the post: Israel, Ice Cream, Trademarks: This Year's Dumbest Controversy Results In Trademark Skullduggery
Re:
Care to be specific about what was incorrect?
On the post: Streisand Effect Still Works: Vancouver Roofing Company Hit With Negative Reviews After Suing Over A Negative Review
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Having experience with the company / product / service. A review about a company based on reading about them in the news is not legitimate in my opinion, and apparently these review companies agree.
On the post: Israel, Ice Cream, Trademarks: This Year's Dumbest Controversy Results In Trademark Skullduggery
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, fundamentally the state is a government which must not violate the first amendment.
"The American Civil Liberties Union has challenged the constitutionality of several states’ laws as violations of freedom of expression. In Texas, it represents two university students who want to judge high school tournaments, a freelance writer and a reporter. These individuals were required to sign a certification that they are not engaged in boycotts of Israel or settlements or forgo opportunities and lose income.
US federal courts issued preliminary injunctions blocking the enforcement of anti-boycott laws in Kansas and Arizona following similar suits, leading legislators in both states to scale back their laws. An Arkansas federal court dismissed an analogous challenge to its similar law, which has been appealed. The Texas case remains pending."
This hasn't been settled, but there's a clear first amendment case here.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/04/23/us-states-use-anti-boycott-laws-punish-responsible-busines ses#
On the post: Israel, Ice Cream, Trademarks: This Year's Dumbest Controversy Results In Trademark Skullduggery
Re: Re:
Without infringing on anyone's constitutional rights, yes. Using state power to retaliate against someone for their speech is a classic first amendment violation.
Next >>