> If someone forgets to lock their door and a thief gets in and robs them, do you think it's fair to "blame" the person who forgot to lock their door?
No, but let's say they've bought from a manufacturer who is not most well known for their lock mechanisms, wouldn't it be the user's responsibility to find a better alternative? You're to be held accountable for your part.
You're making the assumption that the average person thinks Google employs the “most well known software developers on the planet” – that's your subjective take, not anything close to common knowledge
I suppose the question you're asking is why we've socially moved away from doing stuff just for fun in an effort to make a “passive” income and monetize as much of our time as possible.
Personally, I've seen my peers (by both profession and age) stop participate in activities that don't have an immediate reward, the only exception they make is if there's a long term financial reward. Odd.
> So you’re in favor of the government controlling political speech that you don’t agree with?
Where did I say or imply any of that?
>Nowhere in the DI&E training I’ve taken at the country’s second largest employer do they claim one group is inherently prejudice.
Good, so that law you were so much against wouldn't affect you.
> We are all inherently prejudice based on our own lived experiences.
So that is your excuse to justify systematic prejudice? That is the same line of thinking racists use to justify their disgusting behavior.
> White people in metro areas are often prejudiced against “rural America”. Lighter skinned Black or often prejudiced against darker skin Black people. There have been reports that Indians are still practicing the caste system in hiring. Second and third generation Americans of the same race talk about people from their own country who are “fresh off the boat”.
What are you implying? That we shouldn't hire based on merit, but perceived race or prejudice? Your argument is all over the place, make a point.
> But either way, seeing that you don’t see a problem with the government controlling speech that you disagree with is the very reason that the government shouldn’t have that power.
No, that is not what you are seeing, but what you want to see. Feel free to re-read the entire thread because you seem to come to conclusions of your own.
I've repeated countless times that the problem is prejudice, not free speech. You're willingly ignoring what is said and make up conclusions for yourself.
I find it amusing you continue with the Cathy Newman reenactment.
>So the government should pass laws that tell private companies what they can’t talk about.
Yes, they should not allow private companies to spew and enforce systems of prejudices.
> But the government should also pass laws that force companies to publish every other opinion?
Yes, that's the free speech part, you know.
> Isn’t that the government now controlling free speech?
Not even close.
> Isn’t the government in fact pushing a narrative when they don’t allow companies to focus on sexual an racial harassment?
Except it only happens when it doesn't actually happen, and you look through a lens of prejudices, like the law attempted to prohibit. We have a justice system for when it actually does happen, though.
> Should companies not train interviewers that you shouldn’t discriminate based on someone’s accent or where they went to school?
And that is exactly what the law would prevent; "teaching or business practices that contend members of one ethnic group are inherently racist and should feel guilt for past actions committed by others".
I think that the last sentence already answered all the questions you just asked.
"The government should keep social media platforms in check and protect their citizens against censorship (in any form, as long as it is lawful) on large, influential platforms."
> Would you want that same government to force HN to allow political topics?
If we were talking politics and Dang would censor anyone because of their ideology, yes, the government should set laws in place against that.
> Would it apply to religious organizations that set up a social media platform?
No.
> You said yourself it would be a “negative outcome”.
Yes, stop misinterpreting it, I had expanded on it in the same sentence.
> The state pushing this is the same state that tried to force companies not to speak about diversity
You mean the same law that "prohibits teaching or business practices that contend members of one ethnic group are inherently racist and should feel guilt for past actions committed by others"? The same law that prevents schools and business from reducing a person to just their race to assign labels of privileges regardless of all the nuances that make up an individual?
Like I said, for the third time: government influence has a negative outcome in most cases. I'm not sure how you got to a different conclusion.
The government should keep social media platforms in check and protect their citizens against censorship (in any form, as long as it is lawful) on large, influential platforms.
This is a win. Despite how we feel about Russia and its government, it's a good move to decrease Microsoft, Apple, and Google their global power. Now we hope that the open source community stays true to their open source intent and allows Russians to use open source software the same as any other person.
I was not disagreeing with you in the initial reply, two things can be true at the same time.
Like I said; government influence has a negative outcome in most cases, but allowing social media platforms to do as they wish is a recipe for disaster if we're not there already.
> Im sure the religious right would love to control the narrative
I'm sure the ideological left appreciates the social media platform's bias towards their progressive ideology. It's equally wrong if they had a different bias. You, we, need to stop being divisive, it's toxic.
I hope you can see the hypocrisy and bias in your desire to ban ideas you dislike – it's dangerous. A better outcome would be to fight bad ideas with good ideas.
> It amazes me that people want to give the government this much power.
It amazes me that we let social media platforms run freely with whichever narrative, ideology they enforce. Government influence has in most cases a negative outcome, but letting these platforms, especially ones at the scale of Twitter and Facebook, act freely is unwise.
> I hope that if someone writes a book saying people should physically harm you
One could argue that calls for gender-affirming surgeries or treatments are equally, if not, worse. These topics are especially prevalent in the LGBTQ community, as I have found from my experience. Nevertheless, we seem to encourage this kind of behavior whereas we. It is important to be aware of which ideas you are rejecting, especially when the community you seem to be defending is also committing acts of the same caliber.
> Yeah, but then they would imprison the CEO and not the developer.
While they do get blamed, the Netherlands doesn't seem to care all that much. They seem very selective with how they react to supposed money laundering
No, but let's say they've bought from a manufacturer who is not most well known for their lock mechanisms, wouldn't it be the user's responsibility to find a better alternative? You're to be held accountable for your part.
You're making the assumption that the average person thinks Google employs the “most well known software developers on the planet” – that's your subjective take, not anything close to common knowledge