Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Show of hands (Score 1) 237

Any business has to abide by some rules. We force companies to uphold various ideals and principles we hold as a nation and society. Landlines were seen as critical in a modern society for citizens to participate and telecommunication companies cannot deny service on political ideology. If social media companies are of the same criticality then they should have the same responsibility. If Obama and the Media are correct in 'Fake news' influencing the last election, doesn't that thrust those companies into the same critical stewardship position as telecommunications and bakers?

You can slap together a new social medium today if you like, and it will cost very little until you get acceptance.

Why didn't the couple use a different bakery? If all of the social media companies have the same 'hate speech' policies that can ban ideology and much of the national dialogue occurs in those networks, on top of subsidized infrastructure, what will that do to our elections and society that wouldn't happen if telecommunications did the same thing to landlines? There are only so many options and not everyone can Zuckerberg their way a new Facebook.

Comment Re:and tomorrow (Score 1) 237

There were a couple instances of this occurring; one in Oregon and one in Colorado that I know of.

http://aclu-co.org/court-rules...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015...

If they had merely refused and accepted the small fine for not living up to the legal duties of a public business, we'd never have heard of the case.

I don't think so because in Colorado there is blatant hypocrisy in the enforcement of the law. Like anything there is more to it than just the headlines of course.

Comment Re:And is Steve wrong? (Score 1) 389

Or he was in a 3 way interview and messed up what he was trying to say and fumbled around the ideas in his head and didn't have time to expand.

If he is in a position to see that trend and can comment on it, if it is true I don't care how it seems. I want to know if it is true or not. If it's not true, lambaste away.

Comment Re:And is Steve wrong? (Score 1) 389

I don't know, honestly. That is something that I would like to know. Why these CEOs? Is there a trend of 'uncivic' behavior from Asian CEOs compared to other nationalities or races or CEOs in general? Is there any evidence to support that claim? I would rather see if the statement is true or not then have an emotional reaction from misrepresenting statements that are unfounded in reality.

Comment Re:And is Steve wrong? (Score 1) 389

Are those CEOs outsourcing citizen talent for foreign talent? Undermines civic society.
Are those CEOs taking advantage of H1B policies at the expense of citizens? Undermines civic society.
Are those CEOs using their citizen workforce to train their foreign replacements? Undermines civic society.
Are those CEOs lobbying for more of this advantage at the expense of citizens? Undermines civic society.

Should I go on? Whether he is correct in that '75% of CEOs from Asia/South Asia' is a matter of looking at their policies and seeing if they are not good for citizens. Has that been done? Is he in a position an informed statement? I don't know. Why don't you question the validity of the claim instead of misinterpreting what he says to fit your bias.

Comment Re:Show of hands (Score 1) 237

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.

In this instance I am talking about landlines. I understand that the law isn't uniform across all mediums because the law hasn't kept up with technology. Excluding illegal activity such as harassment. No one is arguing that harassment should be allowed. I think much of the point of this conversation has been had before with landlines but that has fallen by the wayside because of new technology and a complicit government.

Facebook is not able to refuse service based on Race, Religion, National Origin, or Sex anymore than a baker can.

Actually, a baker can refuse service based on someones religious belief. but a baker cannot use their religion to influence their policy. The baker is unable to control their policy of use. Telecommunication companies cannot choose their policy of use, why should Facebook and Twitter be exempt from the same civic responsibility? Landlines were seen as critical in a modern society for citizens to participate. If social media companies are of the same criticality then they should have the same responsibility. If Obama and the Media are correct in 'Fake news' influencing the last election, doesn't that thrust those companies into the same stewardship position as landlines and bakers?

Sure, Facebook isn't denying you access to their service because you are Male or Christian, but they can deny you based on conservatism or liberalism because those are not protected classes. I guess, that means that the baker should have denied service because the gay couple in question were liberal instead of gay. Social media companies can overcome the technical difficulties you mention, does that mean that they are get to be arbiters of truth and politically acceptable speech when increasing number of citizens use their service? Is there any other service of such importance that we don't forfeit their civic responsibility? (important in that it can affect our elections like Obama has said)

You say I can go to Google+ but then why didn't the couple use a different bakery? If all of the social media companies have the same 'hate speech' policies that can ban ideology and much of the national dialogue occurs in those networks, on top of subsidized infrastructure, what will that do to our elections and society that wouldn't happen if telecommunications did the same thing to landlines? There are only so many options and not everyone can Zuckerberg their way a new Facebook.

Comment Re:Show of hands (Score 1) 237

It's private just like a baker restricting their service on religious grounds until the government steps in and then the baker becomes a steward of rights for protected classes. Would you be okay with restrictions on access to phone lines on ideological grounds from AT&T? If enabling conversation on ideological neutral infrastructure is important, how is that different on the AT&T fiber lines vs Facebook servers? Why is AT&T forced to adopt civic responsibility but Facebook does not when Facebook can influence our elections?

Facebook could not exist without the infrastructure subsidized by taxes.

Comment Re:Show of hands (Score 1) 237

Is your solution to have governments punish companies for not connecting everyone's call? Do you really want the government to have that much power over telecommunication companies? Think of the oversight necessary to enforce this law. You would have thousands, perhaps millions of people complaining to the government that these companies aren't connecting their call, and if the telecommunication companies deny that this call was ever connected on their platforms, the government would have to have permanent access to the phone lines to monitor if the connections are in fact ever made. Who is to determine how big a telecommunications company is before the government takes control of it?

FTFY. We force a baker to be stewards of protected classes for a wedding cake. We force telecommunication companies to be stewards of access to infrastructure. Social media influenced the election and if Obama is to be believed about 'fake news', shouldn't enablers of speech be held to the same standard as the baker or AT&T with the ideals we deem important as society? Social media wouldn't exist without the infrastructure yet you would be upset if a phone company shut off your access because of your political ideology. If discourse is mostly happening on social media, are you okay with those companies able to influence the election as if a phone company could restrict ideology?

Comment Re:Show of hands (Score 1) 237

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 guess in the same vein that if AT&T restricted access on political ideological grounds, you are free to set up your own lines? Facebook and others can't exist without the infrastructure that is subsidized by tax payers. Why are enablers of speech not stewards of speech like a baker is a steward to protected classes for wedding cakes? Last I checked, wedding cakes don't have the same impact on our elections as these enablers of speech do if Obama and the media are to be believed with their 'fake news' narrative.

Comment Re:Show of hands (Score 1) 237

They operate on the infrastructure that is managed by AT&T and the likes that is subsidized by tax payers. A baker is a steward of protected classes for wedding cakes. AT&T are stewards for access to infrastructure. Why are enablers of speech not protecting free speech if we value freedom of speech as a society?

If Facebook is a soapbox in a town-square, why should they have the right to restrict what is said on that box if it cannot exist without the town-square when we don't even hold the same for the town-square itself?

Comment Re:and tomorrow (Score 1) 237

When is Social Medias influence on elections and society enough that they should be stewards of free speech? Just like phone companies are stewards by not restricting on political ideological grounds. Or a baker who becomes a steward of protected classes for wedding cakes? We seem to think 'you are a private business and do what you want' until you become a baker exercising religious belief or AT&T that has been determined critical for the nation. If medias influence on the elections are a critical issue that Obama and Media have been parading about 'fake news', then maybe we should take the next step by saying; "when you become a platform of speech you are a steward of free speech". Being an enabler of speech is no different than enabling access to the phone lines that we paid for via tax subsidies.

It maybe their backyard but it is the phone/cable lines that Social Media operate. Can an ISP restrict their access on politically ideological grounds? AT&T? A better analogy would be in AT&Ts/ISPs back yard and Facebook owns a soapbox. Are platforms of speech just as important as the infrastructure that transport that speech? When you put up soap box in the town square, why should you be able to restrict what someone says on that soap box if that soap box cannot exist without the town-square?

The baker is forced to be a steward of protected classes. AT&T is a steward of infrastructure. Why are Facebook and Twitter special when they can influence society to a greater degree? We force companies to uphold ideals we as a society deem important, such as protected classes and politically neutral access to infrastructure. Why is the freedom of speech not important enough that enablers protect it?

Slashdot Top Deals

Take an astronaut to launch.

Working...