Free Speech

  • Thread starter A2K78
  • 1,028 comments
  • 63,385 views
Maybe they should consider slipping a few bucks to conservapedia instead.
Joey D
Imagine complaining that social media is treating you "unfairly". That's some serious basic white girl "influencer" who got a temp ban from Instagram level stuff.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Swagger897
I mean, if double standards are you're thing, then I would say you're welcome to endorse them?
Click to expand...

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.

TexRex
It's like the fire scene in Bambi.
Click to expand...

Woah, spoiler alert.
 
Joey D
Woah, spoiler alert.
Click to expand...
My bad.

Joey D
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.
Click to expand...
:odd:

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.
 
Joey D
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.
Click to expand...

Does it though? And does it any more than Google? Or, other Facebook products like whatsapp, messenger or instagram?
 
MatskiMonk
Does it though? And does it any more than Google? Or, other Facebook products like whatsapp, messenger or instagram?
Click to expand...

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.
 
^ 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.
 
Joey D
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.
Click to expand...

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
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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:
HenrySwanson
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
Click to expand...

“I conclude from … the totality of the evidence, that [Forstater] is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.”

...

“A number of commentators have viewed this case as being about the claimant’s freedom of speech. Employment Judge Tayler acknowledged that there is nothing to stop the claimant campaigning against the proposed revisions to the Gender Recognition Act or, expressing her opinion that there should be some spaces that are restricted to women assigned female at birth. However, she can do so without insisting on calling transwomen men. It is the fact that her belief necessarily involves violating the dignity of others which means it is not protected under the Equality Act 2010.”
Click to expand...

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...
 
UKMikey
While I agree, I can't believe that this still needs repeating on this thread.
Click to expand...
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:
HenrySwanson
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"?
Click to expand...

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.
 
💡

Aww...somebody already thought of it.

classy-white-wooden-sock-box.jpg


...

Ooooohhhhhhhhh, nevermind. I just realized that said "case of sucks".
 
HenrySwanson
The thing is, how would we feel when the person not getting their contract removed has only made a minor "transgression".
Click to expand...

It's for them to choose "minor" in the first instance, for an emplyoment tribunal to concur in the second.

HenrySwanson
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"?
Click to expand...

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.
 
HenrySwanson
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"?
Click to expand...

Just for fun, let's refer to the judgement..

..her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.”
Click to expand...

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.
 
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

Joey D
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
HenrySwanson
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
baldgye
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...
Click to expand...
I meant the next part of the case, which is in regards to his termination.

You'll note that the employer's didn't disagree with his assertion that it was a protected belief in this part.
 
HenrySwanson
I meant the next part of the case, which is in regards to his termination.

You'll note that the employer's didn't disagree with his assertion that it was a protected belief in this part.
Click to expand...
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?
 
baldgye
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?
Click to expand...
The gist I got from the majority of responses to my post was essentially that a private employer is free to hire/fire based on whatever the employee has said.

I can see you think differently which is interesting.
 
HenrySwanson
The gist I got from the majority of responses to my post was essentially that a private employer is free to hire/fire based on whatever the employee has said.

I can see you think differently which is interesting.
Click to expand...
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.
 
baldgye
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.
Click to expand...
So would objecting to the proposed reform to the Gender Recognition Act be an "arbitrary reason" that should be protected?
 
HenrySwanson
So would objecting to the proposed reform to the Gender Recognition Act be an "arbitrary reason" that should be protected?
Click to expand...
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...
 
baldgye
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...
Click to expand...
I was giving the example of someone critical of the reforms. For instance, that could be someone who believes in trans rights but believes self declaration of gender could be a problem for females. Would this hypothetical person be worthy of protection?
 
Last edited:

Latest Posts

Back