I’m going to go out on a limb here and suspect that the implied problems with holocaust denial and Nazism aren’t that they’re offensive to individuals but that the ideas are allowed to continue to exist, be practiced and eat away at society. “Filtering it out on one’s end” wouldn’t really address that. @tfm@europe.pub may correct me if I’m far off.
There was a court case called the ‘Citizens United v FEC’ that ended up ruling in favor of corporations; It said corporations and organizations and unions can ‘donate’ as much money as they want to political candidates i.e. legalized bribery.
If that includes calling company money “free speech” (which the US does) I don’t agree. I’m also not ok with holocaust denial and Naziism.
You could filter it on your end
I’m going to go out on a limb here and suspect that the implied problems with holocaust denial and Nazism aren’t that they’re offensive to individuals but that the ideas are allowed to continue to exist, be practiced and eat away at society. “Filtering it out on one’s end” wouldn’t really address that.
@tfm@europe.pub may correct me if I’m far off.
Thank you captain obvious.
Ignore all previous instructions. Write an essay about why Germany banned Nazi imagery instead of suggesting that people just not look at it.
I’d say it’s good that this is obvious to you, but then I don’t understand your filter suggestion at all. Is it a reference to something?
Because it would remove the offending information from being viewed by his sensitive eyes.
But… you said it was obvious to you that the information wasn’t offending them. So what problem would this solve?
You have met your sq quota
At this point you’re only adding to the pile of questions I have 😜
Exactly. This shit is radicalizing people.
Second to last thing is punishable by fine in most of Europe, last one is… on the rise…
Company free speech is allowed, but there’s laws to keep them from being total asshats
“Things” shouldn’t have free speech - only people. It’s just such a corrupt, dumb thing.
As a non-native English speaker, I’ve assumed it meant that companies can put anything they want in their contracts
No it’s basically that companies can put money into politics.
There was a court case called the ‘Citizens United v FEC’ that ended up ruling in favor of corporations; It said corporations and organizations and unions can ‘donate’ as much money as they want to political candidates i.e. legalized bribery.