Free Speech
- Thread starter A2K78
- 1,178 comments
- 81,443 views
Joey D
Premium
- 47,474
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
I don't think anyone is really supporting it here, it's more of us saying "this is how it works". As I mentioned, it's probably dubious business practices, but I don't think companies like Facebook, Twitter, and Google (YouTube) are really hurting by censoring content. Unless they start losing money, they're going to continue operating in the same manner.
Even then, why anyone would be concerned about being censored from Facebook? There are far bigger issues when it comes to social media that probably should be addressed, mainly how they handle the security of your data. I trust Facebook about as much as a gas station sushi and refuse to have it on my phone because it definitely listens to conversations.
Woah, spoiler alert.
- 87,420
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Absolutely. Private companies can act however they please because it's pretty much their own loss if they're douchecanoes. And it's not a 1A issue, because private social media companies aren't government.
- 29,980
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
My bad.
Facebook or the sushi?
/s
This reminds me of the NFL, urged in no insignificant part by Trump, penalizing players for kneeling during the anthem. As protest goes, I thought it was danged respectful to simply kneel quietly, but I acknowledge the players are employees and are obligated to conform to a specific code of conduct to ensure they remain employed. Fortunately I'd already bailed from the NFL over their handling of players engaging in domestic abuse, and so I didn't have to decide whether I wanted to keep watching or not over that policy.
I think if you really don't approve of these social media platforms' business practices, you just may have some tough decisions to make. They provide services of which you are in no way obligated to take advantage.
I'm not on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, etc. I do have a YouTube account that enables me to have easier access to the content I've decided I want to see but I don't pay a subscription fee.
- 17,259
- United Kingdom
Joey D
Premium
- 47,474
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
Well, it either listens to me or knows that I'm talking about something completely irrelevant and then shows me ads. For example, I was talking to a co-worker about getting a new car. I recommended the Toyota Highlander, something I'd never drive or even Google for that matter. The next time I opened Facebook I saw an ad for the Highlander. It was creepy enough that I decided I didn't need or want it on my phone anymore.
As for other apps, I have no idea. I've never experienced anything like the Facebook incident with Google. Google only shows me ads for things I've searched for.
- 3,909
- St.Pete, FL
- NotThePrez
- NotThePrez
^ On a Simi vein, I distinctly remember going to RadioShack and buying a Skullcandy headset in high school. Never had any interest in Skullcandy, or even knew much about headsets at the time.
I go home and log into Facebook, and literally the first thing I see is an ad for Skullcandy's FB page. Needless to say, that pretty much killed my interest in FB at the time.
I go home and log into Facebook, and literally the first thing I see is an ad for Skullcandy's FB page. Needless to say, that pretty much killed my interest in FB at the time.
- 17,259
- United Kingdom
It's a subject I find interesting, though this isn't necessarily the best place for a discussion on it. Briefly, the first things I consider; have I seen an advert for that product before this instance of an ad appearing? The second is, will the connection I'm using have been used by other people to search for things, and thirdly, would my location give anything away - and further, have I been in close proximity to lots of people searching for a certain thing.
Personally, I let Google track the eff out of me, but adverts targeted at me online are rubbish, my browsing history means I should basically see the same 3 things nonstop, yet I get irrelevant stuff that doesn't interest me. It's an untested theory, but I believe this is because I actually buy very little on line (2 personal purchases in about 2/3 years), and I suspect purchasing activity is prioritised over browsing activity. This is backed up by the fact that work purchases made directly (with no searching) from sites like RS Components spank my banner adverts for weeks and weeks across all devices (because google).
HenrySwanson
(Banned)
- 2,942
- United Kingdom
I think this is the right place to put this - it made more headlines in the UK since JK Rowling tweeted in support of the lady sacked for anti trans tweets:
https://www.theguardian.com/society...y-worker-who-lost-job-over-transgender-tweets
https://www.theguardian.com/society...y-worker-who-lost-job-over-transgender-tweets
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
The "lost her job" narrative is a bit dodgy, her contract wasn't renewed after she made a series of controversial social media posts. As with many modern contracts, particularly in public relations jobs, that was a no no. Her job wasn't removed, it timed out and she wasn't offered another. There's no free speech issue there - none of her posts were censored by anybody and she remains free to make them. The company that had the choice of whether or not to give her another job decided not to, as is their wont.
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,346
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
Yes, as far as I can see she hasn't been silenced. They just don't want to pay her to be nasty to people so it's a literal case of "free" speech in this case.
Last edited:
Seems fair enough, she has the freedom express herself and her opinion. But her employer isn't required to employ people who make harmful and exclusionary statements. Especially an employer that actively campaigns against inequality...
HenrySwanson
(Banned)
- 2,942
- United Kingdom
The thing is, how would we feel when the person not getting their contract removed has only made a minor "transgression". For example, if I were to criticize the Lib Dems proposed reforms to the Gender Recognition Act would it be acceptable to sack me for being "transphobic"?
Last edited:
Joey D
Premium
- 47,474
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
Sounds like a case of sucks to them. Private companies can, and should be able to, do whatever they like in terms of employment. Also, there's probably a policy at most companies that address this. I know at my place of employment, it clearly says any for of racism, bigotry, or prejudice isn't tolerate and can be punishable up to and including termination.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
It's for them to choose "minor" in the first instance, for an emplyoment tribunal to concur in the second.
Depends how the criticism is undertaken and worded and depends on how your employer feels about that. You're still free to make the criticism, no free speech issue there.
Just for fun, let's refer to the judgement..
It's not a complex 'what if' riddle, if you want to violate equality laws your employer is within it's rights to terminate your contract. Don't forget an employer has a duty of care to it's entire workforce.
HenrySwanson
(Banned)
- 2,942
- United Kingdom
So I can assume then that the majority here would be rooting for the employer in this case that's currently going through the courts in the UK:
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...m-is-a-belief-protected-by-law-tribunal-rules
Where does this then leave freedom of speech as a concept. If you can lose your livelihood based on having contrary thoughts and opinions how does debate in society about controversial subjects proceed without being heavily stacked in one sides favour.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeand...m-is-a-belief-protected-by-law-tribunal-rules
Where does this then leave freedom of speech as a concept. If you can lose your livelihood based on having contrary thoughts and opinions how does debate in society about controversial subjects proceed without being heavily stacked in one sides favour.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,474
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
Freedom of speech is merely the idea that the government can't censor you and you're allowed to say what you want. It ends there and anything past the government is a different story.
If you're worried about what you say affecting your job you have three choices: stay silent, say it anyway and accept the consequences, or find a new job. You don't have the right to have a job, just like you don't have the right to say whatever you want without consequences imposed by a non-government entity.
Do I personally think companies should fire someone for saying something off the clock? No they shouldn't, but that's a moot point.
Why would we be rooting for the employer? I don’t get how this has anything to do with freedom of speech. That ruling isn’t even on his termination...
HenrySwanson
(Banned)
- 2,942
- United Kingdom
So... (my understanding of this case) his employer was impeaching on his now protected belief system. He pointed this out and instead of dealing with the problem they just fired him?
In what world would I support the employer?
HenrySwanson
(Banned)
- 2,942
- United Kingdom
That’s because I’m British and in my country of origin we have employment laws.
People shouldn’t (and don’t (mostly) in the U.K.) have to fear loosing their main source of income for arbitrary reasons they cannot control.
HenrySwanson
(Banned)
- 2,942
- United Kingdom
What? If you’re going back to the original link you posted then no. Her opinions are not worth protecting just like those of a racists aren't...
HenrySwanson
(Banned)
- 2,942
- United Kingdom
Similar threads
- Poll
