I think you're a little confused. Facebook is not able to refuse service based on Race, Religion, National Origin, or Sex anymore than a baker can.
A baker has every right not to make a cake with hate speech written on it though.
You bring up AT&T: are you talking about landlines or mobile? AT&T mobile probably could block hate speech from being sent across their private network in the form of texts. They would probably lose some customers to Verizon if they did, but they have that right.
Landlines are a little different. You can't block hate speech being spoken across a land-line there are technical difficulties. The closest example would be if someone repeatedly harassed another person by ringing them up and making hate speech directly too them. Yes, there are laws against that.
Theoretically speaking of course, you have every right to call some Klansmen up and talk about burning crosses, nothing AT&T or anyone else can do about that. It is your right. You can use the internet to do that too, 4chan would welcome it I'm sure. Noone is suggesting a blanket ban on that would be acceptable under the 1st amendment.
Facebook and the other companies mentioned don't want it on their network though. Specific providers, be it Facebook, or AT&T mobile, have the right to remove that content and you have the right to use Google+ or Verizon instead if that angers you.
Rights of the private owner. Facebook owns Facebook's servers.
There is a company called Lamar around here that runs a bunch of billboards. Should I be allowed to paint over their billboards with a message of my choice?
The answer is no, not without their permission.. Even though government pays for the roads that one uses to access those billboards.
Facebook's servers are their property it's their billboards. You and I do not have a right to post whatever we want there. It's private property.
There is not currently a good business case to try and "supplant Google". If google were to sufficiently anger the masses, people would be actively looking for an alternative and a business case would exist.
In this case, absolutely, market forces solve the problem. Just like the famous case of Ford only selling black cars. "Who will replace the behemoth Ford and sell colourful cars?"
As it turned out, lots of people, it sold and Ford had to follow suit. If Google were to become a pariah not delivering what the customers wanted, there would be lots of companies willing to step up and chip away at their various business interests.
The main advantage is you choose when you watch your show. Back in the old days when we had a cable subscription, we'd turn TV on and it would be nothing but reality tv. You either watch reality TV or don't watch anything. Either that or you schedule things around the shows you want to watch.
(seriously, networks with their over reliance on reality crap to cut costs is what made me cut the cord- their trying to save money lost money
With Netflix, you need never watch reality TV. You can pick something worthwhile to watch instead.
That might be the smartest approach. Especially since the streaming market is so fragmented now. Rather than digging through the dregs of a channel for something.
Get Netflix for a few months, catch up on their good exclusives, cancel. Get Hulu for a few months catch up on their good exclusives, cancel. Get HBO for a few months to watch GoT, cancel.
Especially since the market looks even more likely to fragment in the future with CBS, et al, trying to get their own paid for channels. Instead of subscribing to multiple, alternate which one you're subscribed to and do one at a time.
Perhaps people watch the same amount of TV regardless of quality- but it won't all be Netflix.
It used to be Netflix was king and everything I watched was on Netflix. Over time, we've since acquired subscriptions to Amazon Prime (the wife has student account) and Hulu. As Netflix has fewer things worth watch, we spend more time watching Netflix's rivals. (Unfortunately Hulu also has fewer quality shows now too).
We still watch a similar amount of TV (not a lot, we've never been a big TV family) the difference is, most of it isn't on Netflix anymore. Still have the Netflix subscription, but they need to be careful, if we were to decide to drop one of the three services, if Netflix no longer has quality shows they might be the one to go. (in reality Hulu will probably go first after we watch Season 2 of the Path).
I love it... never wear it though because I never remember to charge it, so in hindsight, perhaps a mistake. My watch battery lasts a week, I can't imagine how old it gets to charge watch every day, no matter how awesome it is. Bad enough charging the phone.
I'm curious how this will butt heads with the First Amendment in the United States
First Amendment doesn't apply in the same way a graffiti artist can't claim a first amendment right to spray paint his thoughts on a privately owned wall.
The people having content removed are free to set up their own web sites and host whatever content they want. They are not granted the same rights to post whatever they want on someone else's private property.
Without Bill Gates buying the stock they would have collapsed. He didn't exactly do so of free will- he was forced to do so. That tells you something about the state of Apple at the time.
They already have you family and friends information too though. They know who you text and who you e-mail, where you go, who else is there, and how long you stay there. At least if you have an android they do. If you have an iPhone, apples knows that information instead of google.
Google already knows too much... I don't think this will teach them too much more.
I remember when they really were going out of business and Bill Gates had to prop them up to prevent anti-trust measures against him. Nowadays you'd almost expect Microsoft to go out of business before Apple.
But way more white people are attacked by blacks than the other way around. And if we're talking just about political violence, this past election cycle it was white Trump supporters getting attacked in the streets by blacks and latinos, not the other way around. Leftists will jump through hoops to call it justified of course. After all, left wing violence is speech and right wing speech is violence.
You're proving the AC's point. "Kill whitey" is fine because fuck whitey, not because hate or violence are wrong.
First off, I think you need to check the accuracy of some of your news sources. That aside:
Even if Trump supporters were attacked by blacks and latinos in any large numbers, it isn't because they were white. It is very rare for people to get attacked or persecuted just because they are white.
All that aside, I wasn't saying that hate speech against white is any more acceptable than hate speech the other direction. I was merely explaining why it doesn't always get moderated and filtered out the same way.
Hate speech against whites is also very bad, even if it doesn't garner the same level of outrage or carry the same ominous threat. I do happen to personally believe if they ban hate speech it SHOULD be universally banned, not just in one direction.
What is considered "hate" speech is what gets the most outrage. I'm not saying it is right or wrong- but you won't find as many people "outraged" by racism against whites so it doesn't get the same motivation to censor.
Call a white person a "honky" or a "cracker" and they're more likely to be amused than outraged. Same thing happens if you post a thread saying "kill the whitey". The sentiment is probably just as bad but the outrage is less (and probably justifiably less since white people DON'T have a history of being persecuted by other races).
So yes, hating white people is probably as bad as hating black people, but because there is less public outrage, and because there is less credible threat of it resorting in violence, very few people are going to act as strongly against it.
They also have the most hate speech in the first place, which is probably why they've been resorting to most extreme measures to try and keep customers.
Slashdot Mirror
Steve Jobs?
I think you're a little confused. Facebook is not able to refuse service based on Race, Religion, National Origin, or Sex anymore than a baker can.
A baker has every right not to make a cake with hate speech written on it though.
You bring up AT&T: are you talking about landlines or mobile? AT&T mobile probably could block hate speech from being sent across their private network in the form of texts. They would probably lose some customers to Verizon if they did, but they have that right.
Landlines are a little different. You can't block hate speech being spoken across a land-line there are technical difficulties. The closest example would be if someone repeatedly harassed another person by ringing them up and making hate speech directly too them. Yes, there are laws against that.
Theoretically speaking of course, you have every right to call some Klansmen up and talk about burning crosses, nothing AT&T or anyone else can do about that. It is your right. You can use the internet to do that too, 4chan would welcome it I'm sure. Noone is suggesting a blanket ban on that would be acceptable under the 1st amendment.
Facebook and the other companies mentioned don't want it on their network though. Specific providers, be it Facebook, or AT&T mobile, have the right to remove that content and you have the right to use Google+ or Verizon instead if that angers you.
Rights of the private owner. Facebook owns Facebook's servers.
There is a company called Lamar around here that runs a bunch of billboards. Should I be allowed to paint over their billboards with a message of my choice?
The answer is no, not without their permission.. Even though government pays for the roads that one uses to access those billboards.
Facebook's servers are their property it's their billboards. You and I do not have a right to post whatever we want there. It's private property.
There is not currently a good business case to try and "supplant Google". If google were to sufficiently anger the masses, people would be actively looking for an alternative and a business case would exist.
In this case, absolutely, market forces solve the problem. Just like the famous case of Ford only selling black cars. "Who will replace the behemoth Ford and sell colourful cars?"
As it turned out, lots of people, it sold and Ford had to follow suit. If Google were to become a pariah not delivering what the customers wanted, there would be lots of companies willing to step up and chip away at their various business interests.
The main advantage is you choose when you watch your show. Back in the old days when we had a cable subscription, we'd turn TV on and it would be nothing but reality tv. You either watch reality TV or don't watch anything. Either that or you schedule things around the shows you want to watch.
(seriously, networks with their over reliance on reality crap to cut costs is what made me cut the cord- their trying to save money lost money
With Netflix, you need never watch reality TV. You can pick something worthwhile to watch instead.
That might be the smartest approach. Especially since the streaming market is so fragmented now. Rather than digging through the dregs of a channel for something.
Get Netflix for a few months, catch up on their good exclusives, cancel. Get Hulu for a few months catch up on their good exclusives, cancel. Get HBO for a few months to watch GoT, cancel.
Especially since the market looks even more likely to fragment in the future with CBS, et al, trying to get their own paid for channels. Instead of subscribing to multiple, alternate which one you're subscribed to and do one at a time.
I hate Amazon's interface, but they do have a better library than Netflix now.
It's easier for the kids to navigate Netflix so that is what they watch. If we didn't have the kids, Netflix would have gone already.
Perhaps people watch the same amount of TV regardless of quality- but it won't all be Netflix.
It used to be Netflix was king and everything I watched was on Netflix. Over time, we've since acquired subscriptions to Amazon Prime (the wife has student account) and Hulu. As Netflix has fewer things worth watch, we spend more time watching Netflix's rivals. (Unfortunately Hulu also has fewer quality shows now too).
We still watch a similar amount of TV (not a lot, we've never been a big TV family) the difference is, most of it isn't on Netflix anymore. Still have the Netflix subscription, but they need to be careful, if we were to decide to drop one of the three services, if Netflix no longer has quality shows they might be the one to go. (in reality Hulu will probably go first after we watch Season 2 of the Path).
I have a semi-smart watch. ($25 Martian).
I love it... never wear it though because I never remember to charge it, so in hindsight, perhaps a mistake. My watch battery lasts a week, I can't imagine how old it gets to charge watch every day, no matter how awesome it is. Bad enough charging the phone.
According to the summary it doesn't automatically remove content on other networks, so no.
It flags content for the owners of the other networks to review to see if they agree it should be removed.
I'm sure many of you have had the same thought but there is no way in hell this would be used merely for "extremist" content.
If said companies overstep their bounds customers are free to form rival websites that are not run by over zealous individuals.
I'm curious how this will butt heads with the First Amendment in the United States
First Amendment doesn't apply in the same way a graffiti artist can't claim a first amendment right to spray paint his thoughts on a privately owned wall.
The people having content removed are free to set up their own web sites and host whatever content they want. They are not granted the same rights to post whatever they want on someone else's private property.
I wouldn't want said companies convicting me in a court of law, but controlling the content on their own websites I think they have the right.
Without Bill Gates buying the stock they would have collapsed. He didn't exactly do so of free will- he was forced to do so. That tells you something about the state of Apple at the time.
An idiot will be able to do more jobs if an AI is looking over his shoulder telling him what to do.
Racist! Martians are people too!
When I started looking for naked iPhones my google account got dropped.
They already have you family and friends information too though. They know who you text and who you e-mail, where you go, who else is there, and how long you stay there. At least if you have an android they do. If you have an iPhone, apples knows that information instead of google.
Google already knows too much... I don't think this will teach them too much more.
I remember when they really were going out of business and Bill Gates had to prop them up to prevent anti-trust measures against him. Nowadays you'd almost expect Microsoft to go out of business before Apple.
Why?
The Samsung Pinto has a ring to it...
Since it's self driving, it's more likely you're sitting in it wrong.
But way more white people are attacked by blacks than the other way around. And if we're talking just about political violence, this past election cycle it was white Trump supporters getting attacked in the streets by blacks and latinos, not the other way around. Leftists will jump through hoops to call it justified of course. After all, left wing violence is speech and right wing speech is violence.
You're proving the AC's point. "Kill whitey" is fine because fuck whitey, not because hate or violence are wrong.
First off, I think you need to check the accuracy of some of your news sources. That aside:
Even if Trump supporters were attacked by blacks and latinos in any large numbers, it isn't because they were white. It is very rare for people to get attacked or persecuted just because they are white.
All that aside, I wasn't saying that hate speech against white is any more acceptable than hate speech the other direction. I was merely explaining why it doesn't always get moderated and filtered out the same way.
Hate speech against whites is also very bad, even if it doesn't garner the same level of outrage or carry the same ominous threat. I do happen to personally believe if they ban hate speech it SHOULD be universally banned, not just in one direction.
What is considered "hate" speech is what gets the most outrage. I'm not saying it is right or wrong- but you won't find as many people "outraged" by racism against whites so it doesn't get the same motivation to censor.
Call a white person a "honky" or a "cracker" and they're more likely to be amused than outraged. Same thing happens if you post a thread saying "kill the whitey". The sentiment is probably just as bad but the outrage is less (and probably justifiably less since white people DON'T have a history of being persecuted by other races).
So yes, hating white people is probably as bad as hating black people, but because there is less public outrage, and because there is less credible threat of it resorting in violence, very few people are going to act as strongly against it.
They also have the most hate speech in the first place, which is probably why they've been resorting to most extreme measures to try and keep customers.
Citizen arrest not kidnapping.