This will not butt heads with the First Amendment of the Constitution at all. These are private companies, they are not obligated to post anyone's fake news.
When a company controls so much of the screen real estate, this actually moves beyond what they're allowed to censor. Otherwise they can create their own views, tell you what's acceptable, and of course how to vote.
Who happened to walk into a business and shoot because he was goaded on by GOP propaganda spread not just by random trolls, but party leaders. The Republican party has a real mess on its hands. This will not end well.
You want to show everyone where the GOP had anything do to with this? I'll wait. You already know you're spewing bullshit, the fact that you immedetly jumped to the "It's the GOP ELEVENTYONE!!!!111111111111111111!" Means you're already sucking back on some great fake news.
Useful tip: The GOP has nothing to do with this, it was all independently by people on both sides of the isle. And this was done by one person who looked down the rabbit hole and saw that he was the savior. Despite everyone doing one thing, digging for connection that may or maynot exist.
Bzzzt. Return to go, do not collect $200. Democrats and progressives had control of congress and pushed defunding. On top of that, various state legislatures also pushed defunding, and then there's the multiple judges which were democrats who allowed the defunding of state institutions. Many of the arguments basically boiled down to "even the insane have right."
I agree, they do have right. So do the public, and that includes the protection from those who are mentally unstable.
Oh, okay, so it's 40% of the 2.5% of the population that is Muslim. Or about 1%. Somehow I doubt that their influence will override the will of the other 99% who don't want Sharia law.
And let's look at the state of the UK now shall we? How are all those "asian" rape gangs going(which are still-on going)? The general bending-over-backwards in general society to muslims, where not even christians get the same protections in public society for worship? Remember the trojan horse scandal? How about that schools in the same area are still pushing those views. How about the letters to parents telling parents that if their children "don't go to the mosque, that they'll be labeled racist and it will go in their permanent education file." Sorry, seems I have a better idea of what's going on in your own backyard then you do.
Too bad many businesses are happier to cater to those screaming ctrl-leftists, and ignore those in the majority. Then again, with the gaming press it sure back fired on them. All those people who published the "gamers are dead" articles are no longer in the industry and the sites that pushed it all have had a significant drop in traffic and have yet to recover. Several of those sites lost so much traffic that they were killed by their parent company. One can also see this with "The Red Pill" documentary here in Canada, a theater decided to bow to the almighty feminist horde and withdraw a screen rental. Their sales have already dropped 30%
Unable to follow the line of statements? 40% of muslims in UK want sharia law Sorry you're going to have a hard time finding Christians wanting to ban same-sex marriage, or take the gay-away rights, or womens bodies pretty much anywhere in the west. Even in the US, you're going to hear a lot of whining and that's about it. When was the last time you saw "Christian purity patrols" on the streets? Never. But I can walk through central London today and see the "Sharia police" which MET has said they're cracking down on, but that appears to be very ineffective.
No, it's not a alt-right thing. Rather it's a general humanist thing, because many people are old enough to remember sexlib, or their parents were in it(though with us getting older -- it's sometimes the posters grandparents). The right? Right now it's in the humanist camp on this, women are women and have the right to do what they want. What many have a problem with are the radical feminists(3rd wave), sjws/snowflakes/etc screaming that women have to be protected because they're women. And the belief that women are so stupid, that they're unable to make their own choices and express their sexuality in ways that they want. Rather if they don't follow what they're being told, that they're heretics and should be shamed for expressing themselves. You know, like the ye olde days of showing too much ankle. Unless it's for the cause, then they'll strip down to their underwear.
You're basically talking "outside the norm" Steve Jobs is one of those. Can you name the CEO of AMD? FYI they're female. How about for GM? The last two GM CEO's? Last 3? Yeah, thought not(FYI out of those last 3, one was also female and was responsible for nearly bankrupting them). That's why a CEO isn't the public face of a company, and why companies promote their brand as the face of the company.
... So, there's Eich representing the Mozilla brand on exactly the issue they already know he has a problem with. He doesn't get a chance to represent the foundation again, as they know they have a problem.
Thanks for proving my point. He supported Mozilla's corporate culture, and was forced out for a private opinion. In other words, Mozilla acted in a shitty way, and you support going after people who do things privately and on their own time if they don't align with your views.
That's hardly unique to Islam. Christians in the US seem to want to force their values on everyone else too.
Considering I can drive to the US faster then you, you're doing a great job of showing how little you understand Christians in the US. You're also going to have a very hard time finding any "large group" of Christians who support pushing their values on people.
But, let's look at your side of the pond shall we? What was it most recently, 4:10 want Sharia Law in the UK. 80% believe that same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed, and 90% believe that homosexuality should be punishable by death. Then there's the 35% or so who believe that terrorism against the west is okay. And what was it? 45% said that the UK deserved the 7/7 bombings. Something along those lines, oh and that's from muslims who weren't immigrants but were born and raised in the UK. Looks to me like you've actually got some serious problems there. Just like France, Germany, Sweden, Netherlands do. And somehow you
Yes yes, we get it. Hillary lost, you're triggered as all hell. And you continue to fail to understand why she lost. So instead of being introspective, you've decided to double down. If you think "conservatives are destroying the US" you're doing a great job of showing you have no idea of what you're talking about, except deliciously eating all that propaganda.
I'll wait for the "up next" segment, where you claim a cartoon frog is a white nationalist hate symbol(some fine fake news there -- fyi it was a troll, but the media still reports it as fact). It was a tide of white people who elected Trump, and Trump is also Hitler.
When the CEO takes a political position that alienates a significant fraction of employees, that's bad for business.
Except in his case he didn't take a political position on something. He took a person position. Unless you have actual proof, statements, his words that show this as something else. Then all you have at the end of the day is Mozilla forcing someone out because "reasons they don't like." Which is really no different then the witch hunts for wrong think.
Alright, so you live in a rural area. Even if you have to drive, you can drive a hybrid that gets >50 mpg. And that's actually better for you too, since it means you buy a lot less gas for your long commute. So you do that, right?
Hell, I live ~1.5hrs of the US border, and roughly the same from Toronto. Here's the funny thing, we had gasoline engine cars in the 90's that would easily get 50mpg, those mpg ratings dropped through the floor when they started adding ethanol to the fuel. The reality is, even where I live. Which is within range of cities with 300k, 600k, and 4m within a reasonable distance, you're still likely going driving long distances if you need medical care especially specialist care. That's not even touching on the job situations, and how messed up everything is because of high housing prices. There's half a dozen new people in my neighborhood who drive every day to Toronto because they couldn't afford it with all the taxes/fees/etc. But even spending $150/week in gas it's cheaper to drive.
ISIS is a dead man walking. Trump will be declaring victory on a war that Obama already largely won. But that's hardly the first time that has happened.
Guess that's why you can find them operating in 15 countries now including South and Central America. Very dead, much walking.
No. You're simply not recognizing that our actions can be free speech as well. When we do our very best to cut off all associations with a person, and to deplore their speech and actions, that is our free speech.
No I recognize it, but feel free to do that all you want. But if you find a person having an opinion that doesn't fit with yours because of the definition of "marriage" you're likely very thin skinned, especially if you want to cut off associations with a person over it.
Let's put this as simply as possible: When the public face of your company actively supports a hate group, it reflects poorly on your organization.... Of course, they did NOT force Eich out, he resigned on his own.
So Fogle was a spokesman, but Eich's wan't. Neither were supporting a hate group. The first was engaging in illegal behavior, the second had opinions that you don't like. Good job on the authoritarianism, you opening reeducation camps for wrong think next?
Really? You should go read up on that a bit more, he was forced out. And it cost mozilla a chunk of the marketshare because of their actions, which still hasn't rebounded. Oh you're right, this isn't complicated. It's far more difficult to defend speech when it's speech you disagree with, and you don't appear to have the want or desire to.
He was paid spokesperson. Usually this goes to a celebrity, they tried an "everyman" who followed their plan for weight loss. Too bad he had a yen for kids.
And he was engaging in illegal behavior. Eich's on the other hand wasn't. You're going pretty gun-ho for the whole "if it doesn't reflect my views, they need to be punished" authoritarianism.
Yes, public spokespersons have to represent the brand. That's their only job.
Sure, and in the case of Eich's he wasn't the public spokesman for that brand, it wasn't even his job. So how does that translate again? Right it doesn't.
Far too simplistic. And your point doesn't seem to be correct based on the article itself. The obesity epidemic didn't start in the USA until the 90's, and there were far more factors then just "fat and sugar." The 90's also had the "children should say in side" actors spouting off all the time, coupled with the "stranger danger" garbage painted by the media. The lack of actual exercise and all that has more to do with this.
A CEO is the public face of your company. He or she has to represent your brand. Obviously Mozilla's brand was not to prevent Gay couples from having the right to marry.
CEO's haven't been like that for nearly 25 years, it's different for the "sole ownership" of a company however. They don't represent the brand, they're the guide behind the scenes that makes the brand profitable. Mozilla is Mozilla's brand, nothing more and nothing less.
Well, all of the Nazis, the Klu Klux Klan, and oppressors of various sorts can count on you, then.
I'm going to keep standing up for my values, and I support the Mozilla users for standing up for theirs.
You forgot the people who support social justice in there, BLM, Black Panthers, various student unions and a smattering of environmental groups. Just a FYI.
Your values seem to be: "Free speech is only permitted when it doesn't hurt my feelings." Mine just happens to be, a persons speech should be permitted as long as it's legal.
Slashdot Mirror
This will not butt heads with the First Amendment of the Constitution at all. These are private companies, they are not obligated to post anyone's fake news.
When a company controls so much of the screen real estate, this actually moves beyond what they're allowed to censor. Otherwise they can create their own views, tell you what's acceptable, and of course how to vote.
If this guy had been black, the pizza parlor would have been nuked from space.
Useful tip: You're more likely to be shot by police if you're white while carrying a weapon. It's in all the crime stats you'd care to look at. Don't let that fake media narrative get you down.
Who happened to walk into a business and shoot because he was goaded on by GOP propaganda spread not just by random trolls, but party leaders. The Republican party has a real mess on its hands. This will not end well.
You want to show everyone where the GOP had anything do to with this? I'll wait. You already know you're spewing bullshit, the fact that you immedetly jumped to the "It's the GOP ELEVENTYONE!!!!111111111111111111!" Means you're already sucking back on some great fake news.
Useful tip: The GOP has nothing to do with this, it was all independently by people on both sides of the isle. And this was done by one person who looked down the rabbit hole and saw that he was the savior. Despite everyone doing one thing, digging for connection that may or maynot exist.
Bzzzt. Return to go, do not collect $200. Democrats and progressives had control of congress and pushed defunding. On top of that, various state legislatures also pushed defunding, and then there's the multiple judges which were democrats who allowed the defunding of state institutions. Many of the arguments basically boiled down to "even the insane have right."
I agree, they do have right. So do the public, and that includes the protection from those who are mentally unstable.
Liar
So she's running a recount in the states where Hillary won by only 3k votes? No? Oh I thought so. She's running a scam you fucking rube.
Oh, okay, so it's 40% of the 2.5% of the population that is Muslim. Or about 1%. Somehow I doubt that their influence will override the will of the other 99% who don't want Sharia law.
And let's look at the state of the UK now shall we? How are all those "asian" rape gangs going(which are still-on going)? The general bending-over-backwards in general society to muslims, where not even christians get the same protections in public society for worship? Remember the trojan horse scandal? How about that schools in the same area are still pushing those views. How about the letters to parents telling parents that if their children "don't go to the mosque, that they'll be labeled racist and it will go in their permanent education file." Sorry, seems I have a better idea of what's going on in your own backyard then you do.
You mean besides it getting worse? How's that threat to democracy working out for you guys? And it's a trend? And it's a trend that continues to be constant or increasing. FYI you can find the actual poll data very easily.
In business you need to care about the majority.
Too bad many businesses are happier to cater to those screaming ctrl-leftists, and ignore those in the majority. Then again, with the gaming press it sure back fired on them. All those people who published the "gamers are dead" articles are no longer in the industry and the sites that pushed it all have had a significant drop in traffic and have yet to recover. Several of those sites lost so much traffic that they were killed by their parent company. One can also see this with "The Red Pill" documentary here in Canada, a theater decided to bow to the almighty feminist horde and withdraw a screen rental. Their sales have already dropped 30%
Where did you get these figures?
You've clearly more informed about Muslim attitudes in the UK than I am, and I live there!
From your own media. You are paying attention right? The 40% of muslims wanting sharia was in the UK press a bit ago. The others? Just dig through the news over the last 2 years, you'll find the polls.
Unable to follow the line of statements? 40% of muslims in UK want sharia law Sorry you're going to have a hard time finding Christians wanting to ban same-sex marriage, or take the gay-away rights, or womens bodies pretty much anywhere in the west. Even in the US, you're going to hear a lot of whining and that's about it. When was the last time you saw "Christian purity patrols" on the streets? Never. But I can walk through central London today and see the "Sharia police" which MET has said they're cracking down on, but that appears to be very ineffective.
No, it's not a alt-right thing. Rather it's a general humanist thing, because many people are old enough to remember sexlib, or their parents were in it(though with us getting older -- it's sometimes the posters grandparents). The right? Right now it's in the humanist camp on this, women are women and have the right to do what they want. What many have a problem with are the radical feminists(3rd wave), sjws/snowflakes/etc screaming that women have to be protected because they're women. And the belief that women are so stupid, that they're unable to make their own choices and express their sexuality in ways that they want. Rather if they don't follow what they're being told, that they're heretics and should be shamed for expressing themselves. You know, like the ye olde days of showing too much ankle. Unless it's for the cause, then they'll strip down to their underwear.
You're basically talking "outside the norm" Steve Jobs is one of those. Can you name the CEO of AMD? FYI they're female. How about for GM? The last two GM CEO's? Last 3? Yeah, thought not(FYI out of those last 3, one was also female and was responsible for nearly bankrupting them). That's why a CEO isn't the public face of a company, and why companies promote their brand as the face of the company.
... So, there's Eich representing the Mozilla brand on exactly the issue they already know he has a problem with. He doesn't get a chance to represent the foundation again, as they know they have a problem.
Thanks for proving my point. He supported Mozilla's corporate culture, and was forced out for a private opinion. In other words, Mozilla acted in a shitty way, and you support going after people who do things privately and on their own time if they don't align with your views.
That's hardly unique to Islam. Christians in the US seem to want to force their values on everyone else too.
Considering I can drive to the US faster then you, you're doing a great job of showing how little you understand Christians in the US. You're also going to have a very hard time finding any "large group" of Christians who support pushing their values on people.
But, let's look at your side of the pond shall we? What was it most recently, 4:10 want Sharia Law in the UK. 80% believe that same-sex marriage shouldn't be allowed, and 90% believe that homosexuality should be punishable by death. Then there's the 35% or so who believe that terrorism against the west is okay. And what was it? 45% said that the UK deserved the 7/7 bombings. Something along those lines, oh and that's from muslims who weren't immigrants but were born and raised in the UK. Looks to me like you've actually got some serious problems there. Just like France, Germany, Sweden, Netherlands do. And somehow you
Yes yes, we get it. Hillary lost, you're triggered as all hell. And you continue to fail to understand why she lost. So instead of being introspective, you've decided to double down. If you think "conservatives are destroying the US" you're doing a great job of showing you have no idea of what you're talking about, except deliciously eating all that propaganda.
I'll wait for the "up next" segment, where you claim a cartoon frog is a white nationalist hate symbol(some fine fake news there -- fyi it was a troll, but the media still reports it as fact). It was a tide of white people who elected Trump, and Trump is also Hitler.
When the CEO takes a political position that alienates a significant fraction of employees, that's bad for business.
Except in his case he didn't take a political position on something. He took a person position. Unless you have actual proof, statements, his words that show this as something else. Then all you have at the end of the day is Mozilla forcing someone out because "reasons they don't like." Which is really no different then the witch hunts for wrong think.
Alright, so you live in a rural area. Even if you have to drive, you can drive a hybrid that gets >50 mpg. And that's actually better for you too, since it means you buy a lot less gas for your long commute. So you do that, right?
Hell, I live ~1.5hrs of the US border, and roughly the same from Toronto. Here's the funny thing, we had gasoline engine cars in the 90's that would easily get 50mpg, those mpg ratings dropped through the floor when they started adding ethanol to the fuel. The reality is, even where I live. Which is within range of cities with 300k, 600k, and 4m within a reasonable distance, you're still likely going driving long distances if you need medical care especially specialist care. That's not even touching on the job situations, and how messed up everything is because of high housing prices. There's half a dozen new people in my neighborhood who drive every day to Toronto because they couldn't afford it with all the taxes/fees/etc. But even spending $150/week in gas it's cheaper to drive.
Please stop using facts. They don't apply in today's world of the alt-truth.
Found the WAPO "truth and worthiness" expert. Back I say, back into your can.
ISIS is a dead man walking. Trump will be declaring victory on a war that Obama already largely won. But that's hardly the first time that has happened.
Guess that's why you can find them operating in 15 countries now including South and Central America. Very dead, much walking.
No. You're simply not recognizing that our actions can be free speech as well. When we do our very best to cut off all associations with a person, and to deplore their speech and actions, that is our free speech.
No I recognize it, but feel free to do that all you want. But if you find a person having an opinion that doesn't fit with yours because of the definition of "marriage" you're likely very thin skinned, especially if you want to cut off associations with a person over it.
Let's put this as simply as possible: When the public face of your company actively supports a hate group, it reflects poorly on your organization. ... Of course, they did NOT force Eich out, he resigned on his own.
So Fogle was a spokesman, but Eich's wan't. Neither were supporting a hate group. The first was engaging in illegal behavior, the second had opinions that you don't like. Good job on the authoritarianism, you opening reeducation camps for wrong think next?
Really? You should go read up on that a bit more, he was forced out. And it cost mozilla a chunk of the marketshare because of their actions, which still hasn't rebounded. Oh you're right, this isn't complicated. It's far more difficult to defend speech when it's speech you disagree with, and you don't appear to have the want or desire to.
He was paid spokesperson. Usually this goes to a celebrity, they tried an "everyman" who followed their plan for weight loss. Too bad he had a yen for kids.
And he was engaging in illegal behavior. Eich's on the other hand wasn't. You're going pretty gun-ho for the whole "if it doesn't reflect my views, they need to be punished" authoritarianism.
Yes, public spokespersons have to represent the brand. That's their only job.
Sure, and in the case of Eich's he wasn't the public spokesman for that brand, it wasn't even his job. So how does that translate again? Right it doesn't.
Far too simplistic. And your point doesn't seem to be correct based on the article itself. The obesity epidemic didn't start in the USA until the 90's, and there were far more factors then just "fat and sugar." The 90's also had the "children should say in side" actors spouting off all the time, coupled with the "stranger danger" garbage painted by the media. The lack of actual exercise and all that has more to do with this.
A CEO is the public face of your company. He or she has to represent your brand. Obviously Mozilla's brand was not to prevent Gay couples from having the right to marry.
CEO's haven't been like that for nearly 25 years, it's different for the "sole ownership" of a company however. They don't represent the brand, they're the guide behind the scenes that makes the brand profitable. Mozilla is Mozilla's brand, nothing more and nothing less.
Well, all of the Nazis, the Klu Klux Klan, and oppressors of various sorts can count on you, then.
I'm going to keep standing up for my values, and I support the Mozilla users for standing up for theirs.
You forgot the people who support social justice in there, BLM, Black Panthers, various student unions and a smattering of environmental groups. Just a FYI.
Your values seem to be: "Free speech is only permitted when it doesn't hurt my feelings." Mine just happens to be, a persons speech should be permitted as long as it's legal.