Why has the mass media finally 'discovered' it? Because Apple.
Yep, because Apple.
I think Apple is more friendly to ad blocking because they are already sucking all the profits out of the mobile ecosystem with device sales, while their chief rival makes approximately zero from device sales and is dependent on advertising revenue. They are trying to leverage their high-value platform to deny revenue to their competitor.
The politicians demanding martyrdom would be just as comfortable working for North Korea's government as they are working for the USofA's government.
And THAT is a very big problem.
<head nods> As the saying goes, when fascism comes to the USA, it'll march down main street wrapped in a flag and carrying a bible.
Currently my employer isn't in control of the wiping of my phone, I am.
Are you sure about that?
You may be right if your employer only has POP/IMAP access. But if your phone is using Active Sync to access your employer's e-mail/collaboration system (and ActiveSync is the de-facto standard for mobile access these days), then the administrator is free to push out new policies to your device at any time. These policies can be things like requiring a PIN to be set or disallowing camera usage in certain geographic areas. The admin can also send out the "wipe" command at any time to disallow access to any company data on your phone, with the serious collateral damage of also taking out all your own personal accounts, e-mail, photos, etc.
So maybe you are in control of wiping your phone. Until you're not.
As an aside, newer Blackberry 10 phones come with built-in perimeters, one for personal, one for work. Connecting the work perimeter allows company to manage data (including wipe) on that side but not touch data in the personal perimeter. On the Android and Apple platforms, there are similar 3rd party solutions available to segregate and manage work partition independently.
So if Reddit promised you something, and then later takes it away, then yes, it sucks. Arguably not moral. Hypocritical, even. So you win that point...
But file it under "Life In The Big City." Times change, they're growing up, and want to monitize their property, which means making the site "safer" for investors and advertisers.
Yes, they may have promised you all the free speech, but they are under no obligation to keep the status quo.
No rights violations here. Assuming Reddit doesn't go back on their policy, it's time to either accept it or move along.
Reddit banning unpopular views one way or the other - Their prerogative. I'm not necessarily ok with it, but their forum, their rules.
Bakery - more of a "right to discriminate as free practice of religion" than free speech issue, but I think the courts are (mostly) going in the right direction where a business cannot necessarily possess religious views (Hobby Lobby decision is an exception).
Apartment - in many places orientation is a protected class, so they can't discriminate based on it.
Other citatations - more issues of discrimination and fair housing than free speech, and separate from the only point that I am making: free speech for you does not create an obligation on the part of another to create a forum for you.
"No, the grass is green!!!"
Censorship is censorship. There is no misinterpretation. This is censorship. The question is, so what?
Does a private entity have the right to control - "censor" - speech in its forums? Absolutely yes. END OF STORY. People are still free to express displeasure (like here, I suppose), but the private entity doesn't owe them a soapbox or public forum.
Please knock off the straw man argument about censorship in the private sphere like it is something novel and some egregious violation of personal freedom. It happens everywhere all the time. When you buy Oracle you sign away your free speech rights (publishing benchmarks is prohibited). When you live in a condo, you sign away your free speech rights to display the U.S. flag (appearance standards). Employment contracts and severance agreements contain non-disparagement clauses.
<disclaimer>Government, political speech is obviously a different story</disclaimer>
it always makes me laugh when some chucklehead tries to defend censorship and says censorship isn't taking place since the government is not the actor.
It always makes me laugh when some chucklehead misinterprets his freedom of speech as a requirement for someone else to provide him a soapbox.
...The only thing I can every recall from any president is that 'children are the future' and other such nonsense soundbites.
Well, I believe that children are our future. If you teach them well, then just let them lead the way. Show them all the beauty they possess inside.
The hardest part of climbing the ladder of success is getting through the crowd at the bottom.