|
Tuesday, 7 November 2017
quote [ She flipped off President Trump — and got fired from her government contracting job
But Briskman wasn’t wearing anything that connected her to the company when she was on her ride, nor is there anything on her personal social-media accounts — where she wordlessly posted the photo without identifying herself — to link her to the firm. ] Well, as long as it's not the government censoring my speech or denying my access to health care based on what I say, then I guess I have no right to complain…
I think it's time to consider the sentiment in this XKCD strip outmoded. https://xkcd.com/1357/
This is starting to become like a Black Mirror episode (my apologies if there literally is A Black Mirror episode about this, I've only watched occasionally). Private corporations control your access to expression online, and can censor you at their whim. The fact that more traditional forms of communication remain unaffected is like being cut off from the internet but still be able to send telegrams. You may not have to fear imprisonment by the government for your speech, but you do have to fear for your livelihood, access to medical care, internet access and thus ability to communicate. And the private entities controlling your access to these do fear governmental, even just political disapproval. This is just loss of free speech with more steps.
|
norok said @ 5:11pm GMT on 7th November
I think you're reaching too far.
The clear delineation is bringing public controversy back upon your company.
The dichotomy on how people perceive these things is stark. As I noted in another comment here this goes back to the Google Memo debate in August. Many on SE were quick to laud the firing as justified and were also entirely sympathetic to the point he should receive any sort of compensation.
And in this thread your own points about the firing and it's legal repercussions were indeed different but you reserved your criticism towards society as a whole.
norok said @ 5:11pm GMT on 7th November
I think you're reaching too far.
The clear delineation is bringing public controversy back upon your company.
The dichotomy on how people perceive these things is stark. As I noted in another comment here this goes back to the Google Memo debate in August. Many on SE were quick to laud the firing as justified and were also entirely unsympathetic to the point that he should receive any sort of compensation.
And in this thread your own points about the firing and it's legal repercussions were indeed different but you reserved your criticism towards society as a whole.
norok said @ 5:13pm GMT on 7th November
I think you're reaching too far.
The clear delineation is bringing public controversy back upon your company.
The dichotomy on how people perceive these things is stark. As I noted in another comment here this goes back to the Google Memo debate in August. Many on SE were quick to laud the firing as justified and were also entirely unsympathetic to the point that he should receive any sort of compensation.
And in this thread your own points about the firing and it's legal repercussions were indeed different but you reserved your criticism towards society as a whole.
Where one falls on the political spectrum seems to invariably sway one's perception of unique events.
<-- Entry / Current Comment
norok said @ 5:11pm GMT on 7th November [Score:1 Underrated]
I think you're reaching too far.
The clear delineation is bringing public controversy back upon your company.
The dichotomy on how people perceive these things is stark. As I noted in another comment here this goes back to the Google Memo debate in August. Many on SE were quick to laud the firing as justified and were also entirely unsympathetic to the point that he should receive any sort of compensation.
And in this thread your own points about the firing and it's legal repercussions were indeed different but you reserved your criticism towards society as a whole.
Where one falls on the political spectrum seems to invariably sway one's perception of unique events.
