@hrefna It should *absolutely* be considered free speech.
Hate speech is, by its very nature, subjective. If we pass laws outlawing hate speech, they will inevitably be used *against* minorities, not to protect them. Just think about the way many LGBTQ and pro-life activists talk about Christianity. Do you really trust a federal judge put in place by Republicans to not throw people in jail for hate speech against Christians?
In fact, there's precedent for this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaplinsky_v._New_Hampshire
A lot of folks are saying something like "Programmers need to consider ethics before creating a thing."
But... most of us do already, especially senior developers. Some of us even have a proven history of resigning from positions where we're asked to do something we find morally reprehensible.
But the real problem is that the money guys who want to exploit these technologies don't care. Half their workforce quits in protest? No big deal, just hire some kids out of college.
See, the thing about ethics is that they tend not to be able to stand up to the prospects of going jobless while the noose of student loans slowly tightens. Plus, younger folks just don't have the wisdom and experience to identify the ethical quandaries. So they get exploited.
And that, my friends, is how DRM was created.
I'm sure it feels like the whole world is against you when you're acting like a shitty person who says shitty things and then you're called out for it and then you continue to explain how entitled you are to say shitty things and how no one can make you, so people start telling you to fuck off and you get angry that you can't be shitty and by fuck you're not gonna back down, but they keep telling you to go away and pretty soon no one will talk to you.
And that's "cancel culture."
Seriously, WTF College Board?
https://gizmodo.com/sat-college-board-tells-facebook-tiktok-your-scores-gpa-1850768077
@LevZadov I would prefer pigs fly.
Unfortunately, we live in the real world and things don't work like that.
Also, it's hilarious that you tried to slip 2016 numbers in because they support your argument better than the more recent 2020 numbers.
@mentallyalex Agreed. Plus, the man just gives you *so many* reasons to make fun of him, that falling back to such hacky material is pathetic in its own right.
@LevZadov What's your point? Would you prefer he lost?
@LevZadov @georgetakei If you think speech has nothing to do with men's willingness to fight, I have a bridge to sell you.
@LevZadov @georgetakei Of course it can. That's why a historic number of people came out and voted for Joe Biden to prevent Trump from carrying on his plainly tyrannical path. It's what convinced the Allies to lay down their lives to put your example away. It's what created the documents that underlie, to this day, the very legal rights that help keep power in the hands of the people.
The idea you're invoking; that speech cannot solve a problem just because speech did not solve that problem once before; is fallacious. There are thousands of historical examples of speech averting mass tragedy.
@librarianshipwreck @willoremus They're for-profit companies. Why anyone is surprised that they're only invested in the news so long as it turns a profit is beyond me.
@georgetakei I, too, prefer a benign cuckoo over a dangerous one.
@kegill @GramrgednAngel Although, to be fair, the fact that it's only $140 a week means it's not that much of a burden. I missed that.
@kegill @GramrgednAngel Most businesses aren't run by billion dollar CEOs. They're run by your neighbors, just trying to keep their heads above water.
@kegill @GramrgednAngel Oh, I agree government benefits need to be vastly expanded upon and improved.
But why should businesses, especially small businesses that can't afford to pay a salary while getting absolutely nothing in return, have to pick up that slack?
@georgetakei Hopefully nobody. He very much seems like the Marianne Williamson of the group.
@SummerDay @georgetakei They can't. It's perfectly legal under our constitution. See the test for Brandenburg v Ohio. To be criminal, his speech must be intended to, and understood by a reasonable person to, cause imminent lawless action. That's a high bar to prove. They might have enough on him to nail him under that standard for J6, but not on any subsequent speech that I'm aware of.
Software engineering contractor/consultant in Florida specializing in .NET C# #WebDev, plus #Indie #GameDev in #MonoGame, #Stride, and #Godot.
I like complex simulations and enjoy writing procedural generation algorithms for fun.
#Pilot in training. Burgeoning fan of #Aviation in general.
Fan of #1A jurisprudence and the kind of #FreeSpeech that applies to everyone equally.
Pro-Democracy. Pro-Rights. Pro-Freedom. In that order.
He/Him 🏳🌈
High risk of rants, especially with the lack of character limit.