- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
This is dystopian.
“We are currently exploring other methods to continue publishing our content in a way that is engaging and interesting to our followers.”
See! We are fun! Plz ignore the dead black children around the corner k? <3
I recently watched the movie Running Man, and your quote reminded me that in the movie they have court appointed agents instead of attorneys, lol.
You might like Rollerball
Haven’t seen either in a long time but you reminded me of it
Awesome, I’ll check it out.
“We are currently exploring other methods to continue publishing our content in a way that is engaging and interesting to our followers.”
WTF is wrong with police? W the actual F is wrong with them? I swear they think their mandate is “harm the folks we arrest as much as the law will possibly allow, both physically and emotionally.”
What kind of person thinks this is how you treat pictures of human beings in your custody? What kind of person finds this defensible? These are human beings who may have broken some laws, but who are still human beings. Your job is to apprehend them, not to make their life worse in any other way, cops. They don’t become valid objects of your mockery in some official capacity because you arrested them.
Gross. Can we not link Fox “News” stories, please? If you have to reference them, use an archive… They have been and continue to be an active opponent of Democracy. That’s not an exaggeration. They also argued in court that no reasonable *person would believe their coverage, so… free pass?
It’s just one branch of Murdoch’s press. By that logic, they should all be banned as they are all the same group just targeting different demographics…
I’m on board with that. (Not really, just maybe try to find a better source I’d think, but then I’m not someone who posts news stuff.)
Not-fun fact: The Times is also owned by News Corp.
+1
Can we not just ban news orgs cos they have beleifs u dont like. For discussion to take place u need a varied source of opinions and points of view.
Don’t “both sides” this as a dispute about political minutiae. Fox has successfully argued, in court and under oath, that no reasonable person should take them seriously. They’ve stated on their own recognizance that they are not, in fact, a news organization. Based on that alone, their use in matters of fact is extremely suspect.
And that’s before you even get to the fact (not opinion or belief) that some of their most reasonable pundits actively advocate for the suspension of rule of law in the case of the former president. They don’t have “beliefs I don’t like,” they have formal positions that are fundamentally opposed to what it means to be a news organization in the United States.
The fact that two news organizations cater to people on opposite sides of the political divide does not necessarily mean that the truth is “somewhere in the middle.” If someone refers to the sky as “azure” and their opponent says that it’s actually “powder blue,” that’s one thing; reality may well be within that discussion set. But if someone says that the sky is azure, and their opponent says that it’s orange, the truth is not that the sky is actually magenta.
And the fact that an opinion or point of view is expressed does not mean that it needs to be entertained for the sake of valid debate. Just because a mentally ill person is shouting about his belief that all redheads are demons who should be forcibly imprisoned doesn’t mean you need to include him in your decision about what to have for lunch.
The way that people of ill will and bad faith get their arguments heard is by presenting them as reasonably equivalent to the other arguments being made. You are under no obligation to entertain their nonsense.
Exactly you are under no obligation to entertain their nonsence this is no reason to ban and silence them
Actually it is. The social contract with news organizations is that, as long as they report facts and analysis in as neutral and factual a manner as they are able, they can continue to report those facts and analysis. The social contract with pundits is that, as long as they adhere to at least the broadest set of shared values common to the majority of Americans and disagree in good faith when they do not adhere to those shared values, they can continue to share their editorial opinions.
Fox has violated both of those contracts by their own admission, so we are no longer bound by those contracts to welcome their content as news or analysis in public spaces, or to allow their content as news or analysis in spaces we control.
tl;dr: they have decided to stop presenting news, which means that we must no longer treat their content as news.
Im sick of hearing about the fucking social contract this social contract that. The social contract is a construct that exists purly in the subjective. I have no problwm calling u a cunt munching retard and have no proboem u call me the same or worse. I can say fucked shit to u and u can say fucked shit to me there are people who would say thats part of the social construct there are people who wouldnt. Unless u want to write said contract on paper and get everyone to sign it (is that not what laws are?) its purly subjective if not usfull way to explain the actions of people.
Lets take it all the back to the basic concepts of a liberal society. There exists the marketplace of ideas anyone or thing is welcome to add whatever they want to this marketplace like any other marketplace demand then governs the rest. There is a demand for fox by many people they are theirfore a valid (not nessasarilly correct) viewpoint. To ignore this view and/or to ban it is to ignore a vast amount of peoples demand for such ideas within the marketplace.
The social contract is a construct that exists purly in the subjective.
So you’re a sociopath.
Unless u want to write said contract on paper and get everyone to sign it
No, that would be a normal contract. The reason we have a social contract is for the generally-accepted rules and mores of polite and productive public society; deviations from it have to be mutually agreed upon, or else the person deviating will face some real or social consequence.
(is that not what laws are?)
No. Laws are a stopgap that puts our more important social contracts into an enforcement structure, but most of them we just live by. Don’t call a pregnant woman fat. If someone asks for directions, don’t lie to them. When you’re waiting in line to order food, figure out your order before you get to the counter.
its purly subjective if not usfull way to explain the actions of people.
No. It’s pretty generally agreed-upon. That’s why, when you see someone violate it, you can generally make eye contact with someone else who saw it, and share a reaction of surprise or disgust.
Lets take it all the back to the basic concepts of a liberal society.
So you want to change the social contract.
There exists the marketplace of ideas anyone or thing is welcome to add whatever they want to this marketplace like any other marketplace demand then governs the rest.
The free market only works to self-regulate when all actors (the company, the employees, and the public) have generally equivalent levels of power. The public does not have the same level of power as Murdoch’s empire, in any way, shape, or form. Self-regulation may work when businesses are at the scale of a town or even a region, but the corporation gains too much power when they’ve grown beyond that size and soon becomes resistant or even immune to market pressures. So Fox would’ve been competed out of business if they were a local business, but they’re too big to be affected by those pressures at their current scale.
There is a demand for fox by many people they are theirfore a valid (not nessasarilly correct) viewpoint.
There’s also a demand for cannibalism by many people. Is that therefore a valid viewpoint? There were 18,456 murderers walking the streets in 2023. Should we consider their viewpoints valid and entertain them without government regulations?
To ignore this view and/or to ban it is to ignore a vast amount of peoples demand for such ideas within the marketplace.
Fox has created that demand, though; through fearmongering and misinformation. They’ve flouted the social contract in order to increase viewers. It’s like saying that the guy who controls the town’s water supply and has been putting extra salt on everyone’s food has a “vast amount of demand” for his product. No, he’s hurting people to drum up business and he should have that monopoly taken away from him.
So you’re a sociopath.
nope, we are currently disagreeing about the social contract hence proving we have different subjective understanding of what it includes. also calling someone a sociopath doesn’t seem like a good faith argument.
No, that would be a normal contract.
no shit Sherlock that would provide an objective contract thus solving the whole subjective issue.
No. Laws are a stopgap that puts our more important social contracts into an enforcement structure, but most of them we just live by.
sure so laws are the objective part of the social contract a majority of people have agreed (people still disagree about what laws should be)
So you want to change the social contract.
that’s called an opinion ones uses them to shift the social contract to better fit their subjective viewpoint
The free market only works to self-regulate when all actors (the company, the employees, and the public) have generally equivalent levels of power.
The marketplace of ideas in the conceptual gives every single person or organization an exactly equal level of power through the concept of free speech. I would argue lemmy has captured this ideal far better than anything yet by implementing censoring we destroy that equality we have sought to create. If fox’s ideas stop being supported/downvoted they fall out of the marketplace of ideas at which point they either adapt or die.
There’s also a demand for cannibalism by many people. Is that therefore a valid viewpoint? There were 18,456 murderers walking the streets in 2023.
absolutely we should let them speak and their ideas will be filtered by the marketplace.
Should we consider their viewpoints valid and entertain them without government regulations?
Doesn’t the first amendment literally prevent the government from regulating said viewpoints isn’t that the whole fucking point? Let people have an opinion and express that opinion as they wish. I fully support your right to advocate for cannibalism or murder (as long as its not directed at a particular person or group) i will most certainly down-vote it and call you a fucking evil monster but I support your right to say it.
Fox has created that demand, though; through fearmongering and misinformation.
That’s called good marketing
he should have that monopoly taken away from him.
Fox doesn’t have a monopoly in the marketplace of ideas nobody in history has ever had a monopoly on the marketplace of ideas to acheive that u would need to drive out every single person or organization capable of independent thought, or just start censoring people what you are actively arguing for
They’ve flouted the social contract in order to increase viewers.
At the end of the day the social contract is just that a SOCIAL contract so in reality its not really a contract is it but a convention most people choose to obey. If it is beneficial to disregard it people will disregard it that’s how evolution works. its your choice what parts of the social construct you want to follow. If you live strictly adhering to it then you are playing life at a disadvantage. Think about it this way your actions are being controlled by subjective contract that nobody else has to obey I would call that NPC behavior.
If you want fake news, you can go to The Onion. If you want misinformation, Fox News.
Both with sometimes have real news.
But for real discussion, it should probably start with a reliable news source.
Fox news has won court cases on the premise that they are entertainment not news, and that no one should take them seriously. Sooo…
Shit like this is why rightwingers should all be in insane asylums.
I believe what i said is a very traditionally liberal veiwpoint which is almost by defininition the center of the spectrum so if u think thats right wing u must be so far into extreme comunist country u think starlin did nothing wrong.
Frankly I’d prefer if “news” orgs not have beliefs even if I do agree with them. I wish it was just all facts no spin.
Dont we all guess we gotta make up for it by listening to everyones spin and then making a judgement ourselves.
What the fuck.
Here I was thinking about how Lego would probably instruct police not to use their product to hide suspect identities and I was right. No family friendly product/brand wants their stuff being used by the police for obvious reasons.
How hard is it to use the generic ass emojis?
🫏
The donkey is the closest there is to an ass emoji.
Next up, will The Register have to stop using Playmobil to illustrate news stories?
Almighty rumpus in Swedish lesbian enclave
I wasnt sure what I was going to click on, but whoever made that thumbnail deserves a gift card
This is true Internet history. I’m glad to have been made aware of this random, weird story.
It was number one, officer. Just look at him.
How about not putting them on television or in news releases in the first place? Maybe let them have privacy until they’re charged and/or convicted? How about that?
emojis obviously
…they’re going to make a deal with Roblox now, aren’t they?
Some poor guy, hunched over on the ground, getting brutally beaten by the cops and the cam footage shows him going “gedakadootendatendaJoe, I’ve been married a long time ago” with the default Roblox face and headbob animations.
“Your honour, look at this footage and tell me that it isn’t hilarious. You can’t. The defence rests.”
GTA synergies seem strongest
I understand it’s important to protect your brand identity but it’s even more sad that a toy company doesn’t understand the value of “just having a little fun”.
Corporations really seem to exist entirely to suck the joy out of life.
Edit: Yes, we agree that ACAB, and frankly they shouldn’t publicize enforcement information at all. This was intended to be a general statement on IP law rather than law enforcement.
This was intended to be a general statement on IP law rather than law enforcement.
This is exactly the kind of shit IP law should be used for. It’s one thing when Disney goes after murals at kindergartens. It’s another thing entirely when something like a police force publicly associates your IP with their actions.
I feel like it shouldn’t be IP law that stops this, but rather human rights laws. Those aren’t robust enough in the United States yet. Obviously the company will use what tools are available to them.
This isn’t a human rights violation, however. Lego is not a person.
But, Lego heads are their intellectual property, so they can stop that. The human rights part would be more of an issue for another organisation.
That’s what I’m saying, the human rights part is the only thing that matters in this issue. IP law is ultimately meaningless and a hinderance to society while privacy and human rights are a moral objection to what’s happening here.
What LEGO did does not fix the problem, prisoners will still be used as social media posts. They do not fundamentally care about those people, they just want to protect their brand.
Not the human rights of Lego, rather the human rights of suspects or accused people.
no. fuck the police.
Publicizing arrests is not a little fun, it stokes fear of crime in the community disproportionate to the actual rate of crime, while also shaming minorities and poor whites at the same time. It is used to get the public behind tough on crime bullshit which never targets wealthy white collar criminals.
“We have a little fun. Now bow down to the unwavering authority we have to shoot you”
The LEGO group has always been protective of their brand and nervous about being associated with potentially violent content, turning down a partnership with the Halo games because of that. For years, they didn’t want to make grey bricks because they were afraid kids would use them to build tanks. All this to say, this seems pretty on brand for the LEGO group.
For years, they didn’t want to make grey bricks because they were afraid kids would use them to build tanks.
Which years were those? I remember the “Classic Space” sets going all the way back to the '70s had plenty of gray bricks.
Really early on, with the original castle sets, where all the wall pieces were yellow. I believe the space sets were the first grey bricks.
Fuck off with that shit. ACAB
Haha police are so quirky and fun, I love it when they flashbang babies in cribs, shoot the dog, and murder innocent people in their homes! What wholesome fun!
I’m gonna stand with LEGO on this one.
Not to dunk on you, but maybe that extreme would convince you it’s a little bit wrong?
The reason the police department is wrong is not because they’re using LEGO (trademark infringement), it’s wrong because criminals shouldn’t be reduced to “engaging social media content”.
And you are right on the money. Suspects and victims shouldn’t be reduced to infotainment material. I’ve posted it meaning exactly that.
“Just having a little fun”? How stupid can you be?
