1649
submitted 1 year ago by ByroTriz@lemmy.ml to c/privacy@lemmy.ml
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 302 points 1 year ago

Ah yes, just like how free speech means corporations must be allowed to bribe politicians.

[-] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 68 points 1 year ago

But they're people! Well, only in that one instance and not in any others that would allow punishments levied against people to be applied to businesses.

Like, if I sold poison that killed millions of people every year, I'd get the death penalty.

[-] FaeDrifter@midwest.social 27 points 1 year ago

Maybe you should have thought of that before you became peasants.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] gomp@lemmy.ml 215 points 1 year ago

Didn't you know? Disabling ad blockers ensures free speech and apparently may also peacefully end the current crisis in the middle east... oh, did I mention it helps with world hunger too?

[-] FMT99@lemmy.world 75 points 1 year ago

Don't worry we only serve "ethical" ads.

[-] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago

It'll also make your penis 10 inches long

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] miss_brainfart@lemmy.ml 144 points 1 year ago

We are dedicated to safe and ethical advertising practices

Mates, that ship has long sailed

[-] morrowind@lemmy.ml 37 points 1 year ago

There are ethical ad services, but I've never seen outside of one random blog site.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] i_promise_nothing@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What gets me about them (and any other sites really) saying that is there are safer ways in showing ads and that’s just hosting them from their domain instead of selling page space to random ad buyers.

Guess that’s too much trouble and not enough profit for these corporations.

load more comments (1 replies)

Corporations are not people, therefore do not have a right to free speech.

[-] Mango@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

Corporations are people and there should be a jail for them and a gallows.

[-] Ulvain@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 year ago

Wasn't that the whole crux of Citizens United?

[-] FaeDrifter@midwest.social 33 points 1 year ago

CU vs FEC was specifically about campaign financing, but yeah basically ruled that organizations like corporations are protected by 1A, and money counts as free speech.

Which is obviously bullshit on every level, but just one way that a SCOTUS with a few corrupt individuals can destroy democracy for an entire country.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] adespoton@lemmy.ca 71 points 1 year ago

I allow USA Today to speak freely, including speaking their ad frames and images.

But that doesn’t mean I’m compelled to listen to everything they say.

USA Today: speech isn’t free if I’m forced to listen to it.

[-] Deconceptualist@lemm.ee 23 points 1 year ago

Well you're not forced. You don't actually have to go to their website at all.

They seem to be making the argument that if you want some of their content, you have to accept all of it (ads included). Of course, that's absurd. I can pick up a printed newspaper (if those still exist) and skip right to the comics if I want, and bypass the sports and classifieds entirely if I wish. I can pick up a book or album and only enjoy a single chapter or track. You get the idea.

[-] hydrospanner@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

While I agree with you in principle, I'm not sure the newspaper example supports your position, although it is an apt analogy.

I would imagine that the counter argument would take the form of something like, "Yes, you don't have to read the whole paper, but you can't just buy the comics. You buy the whole paper, get access to the whole thing, and the ads come with it. Similarly, with our web presence, in order to access everything, whether you choose to consume it all or not, the ads must come as a part of it."

Personally, I don't fully agree with either that argument or yours, can see the merits and flaws of both, and fall somewhere in the middle.

I'd argue that while they're within their rights to create, distribute, bundle, and price their content as they see fit, just like the current debate with social media companies, your monitor is your own personal, privately owned platform, and you shouldn't/can't be forced to offer a platform to any content you don't wish to publish (to your audience of one). So you're perfectly within your rights to want and attempt to only view the content you wish to see, while they're also perfectly within their rights to want and attempt to package their content in such a way that links their articles with the advertisements of their sponsors.

So at that point, it's just an arms race between the producer doing their best to force ads onto screens and consumers doing their best to avoid same. Neither side is morally right or wrong, and while there likely is a middle ground that wild be acceptable to both parties, there's zero good faith between the two sides which would be necessary to establish that middle ground.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] NutWrench@lemmy.ml 57 points 1 year ago

Yeah, advertising is not "free speech." It's a way for corporations to steal your life from you, 60 seconds at a time

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] K3zi4@lemmy.world 57 points 1 year ago

"We believe in free speech, so you should let us sell your data."

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] w00t@lemmy.ml 47 points 1 year ago

FREE* speech for everyone

*~conditions_apply~

[-] Natanael@slrpnk.net 23 points 1 year ago
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Jaysyn@kbin.social 43 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Injection hackers do not give a single wet fuck about your "safe and ethical advertising practices".

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 43 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Whether or not USA Today believes in free speech, its sponsors to not. They expect brand safe conduct.

Also USA Today's upper management has opinions on what they would publish. You won't see pro-anarchist op-eds in USA Today.

That said, news agencies are less good for getting news rather used in conjunction with others to confirm their veracity.

[-] Kaidao@lemmy.ml 40 points 1 year ago

Lol how insane and out of touch

[-] Anonymousllama@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago

Hilarious, though this was an onion post

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] dadaredone@lemmy.ml 35 points 1 year ago

If garbage had a face.

[-] cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 34 points 1 year ago

why does nobody know what the concept of free speech actually is? it literally means congress will make no law restricting your right to assemble or speak as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights to do the same

load more comments (14 replies)
[-] nick@midwest.social 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
[-] doingthestuff@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

I've felt that way for a long time. It's nice to see someone else say it.

[-] aceshigh@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago

award winning content

sure jan.

[-] ElBarto@sh.itjust.works 26 points 1 year ago

Don't use your freedom of choice, it hurts our bank accounts and bonuses 😭😭 - board member.

[-] ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org 26 points 1 year ago

What's "safe and ethical advertising practices"? Is it like pacifist inclusive Nazism?

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] stevedidWHAT@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago

PROVE YOUR FUCKING PATRIOTISM AND GIVE UP YOUR PRIVACY FOR [INSERT_COMMON_LOOTCRATE_ITEM]

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago

If you don't look at ads on USA Today's website, YOU HATE AMERICA.

[-] shotgun_crab@lemmy.world 23 points 1 year ago

How many lies can you fit in one sentence

[-] lowleveldata@programming.dev 23 points 1 year ago

We believe in free speech, do you? Give us all your money and send us your nude to prove it.

[-] BilboBargains@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago
[-] java@beehaw.org 19 points 1 year ago

"Turn off your ad blocked to prove that you believe in free speech."

This is a hilarious level of argumentation. What's quality of their content?

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] yote_zip@pawb.social 19 points 1 year ago

Are you using uBlock Origin? I don't get that popup after clicking to a few articles.

[-] banazir@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago

I decide what speech is welcome in my home.

[-] BreakDecks@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago

Freedom of speech includes the freedom not to be forced to consume something (including ads). Freedom of speech includes not sending all of my metadata to you and your business partners.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 year ago

Free speech = you must do what we say.

[-] ultratiem@lemmy.ca 17 points 1 year ago

Yes let’s let corporations dictate our freedoms! Literally nothing bad could ever happen guys!

[-] bnjmn@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago

Dark patterns, gotta love em

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] eee@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago

Just use the right ublock filter to get past these silly anti adblocks

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] ironeagl@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 year ago

Your ads are award-winning?!?

[-] 1984@lemmy.today 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Lol that's the dumbest thing I've seen in a while.

There is no free speech in news.

[-] Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml 12 points 1 year ago

Oh, so you believe in free speech? Let me scream into your ear for 30 minutes straight then.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2023
1649 points (97.9% liked)

Privacy

32492 readers
336 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS