Ah yes, just like how free speech means corporations must be allowed to bribe politicians.
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.
Maybe you should have thought of that before you became peasants.
“We believe in free speech, so you should let us sell your data.”
See, if it’s hard to get my data, suddenly it becomes more valuable. These organizations try harder and harder to get to it, and really won’t stop. And really, once it’s out, it’s out.
So I’m just gonna make my data worthless. Fuckin everyone can have it what the hell do I care. I was among the first on Facebook when we had no idea what was happening. Phone numbers, email addresses, home addresses, bare ass to the world. It’s all out there already, no going back in the tube.
I don’t see many ads, so who cares if they have a better idea of what to show me. I don’t spend frivolously, and don’t buy from websites I don’t trust, so what even if I do see some more relevant ads. They’re ads. I’m not paying attention anyway.
I’m not giving out answers to security questions and I’m using two factor authentication everywhere. My credit is frozen and I’ve got all the big stuff bought. I’m not really sure what I have to lose here
I just don’t feel comfortable having these big companies profiting from my information. If it’s that valuable to them, then they should be paying me for it.
Data laws aren’t for you. They are for marginalized and vulnerable demographics, who are put at risk when they get doxxed.
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?
If you disable the ad blocker, they’ll send you some free Iranian yoghurt.
Don’t worry we only serve “ethical” ads.
Free range?
Itll also fix the Israel Palestine conflict.
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
Well no. Freedom to assemble is entirely different from free speech. Both are protected by the First Amendment.
The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States protects:
- The right to speak, specifically the right to political speech and to be critical of the administration or its officers
- The right to practice religion (right now this is being used to override other rights and duties)
- The right to publish, as per above
- The right to assemble with others
- The right to petition your representatives in office for redress of grievances.
When Justice Amy Coney Barrett was being reviewed for her bench position, she couldn’t remember the last one.
But Pepperidge Farm remembers.
The first amendment of the US is not the definition of free speech. People in other parts of the world also have the right to free speech, and it has nothing to do with the US constitution. I know it sounds crazy to you, but there’s countries other than the US.
However, we are on a thread regarding ‘USA Today’… so it would track that they’d bring up the Constitution
Nor was I saying it did.
It’s because the people who pick and choose what the constitution is to them are the same people who pick and choose parts of The Bible. They believe they’re always right and they don’t want anyone to ever tell them they’re wrong.
TIL: Free Speech only exists in the USA, where it was invented by our founding fathers and codified in the Constitution for only Americans to enjoy.
They’re arguing that the press is important to maintaining and exercising free speech. If they go out of business because they don’t make ad money, bad for free speech. Not saying they are right, but I think everyone here is missing what they are really saying.
Why do Americans think that American laws are the same thing as universal concepts?
You’re confusing the “concept of free speech” with America’s Constitutional protection of free speech (the First Amendment).
This is some peak America-brain to suggest that free speech only exists in the USA. I assure you, outside of America’s borders, nobody is referencing the First Amendment when they talk about free speech, and the concept as you so condescendingly claim to be the expert on is not limited to government restriction.
Get fucked, USA Today
I’ve felt that way for a long time. It’s nice to see someone else say it.
Lol how insane and out of touch
award winning content
sure jan.
What’s “safe and ethical advertising practices”? Is it like pacifist inclusive Nazism?
Our ethics dictate we charge the advertisers the highest possible amount so we get more freedom bucks from them
Don’t use your freedom of choice, it hurts our bank accounts and bonuses 😭😭 - board member.
We are dedicated to safe and ethical advertising practices
Mates, that ship has long sailed
There are ethical ad services, but I’ve never seen outside of one random blog site.
I’m sure there are but I don’t have time to go around auditing which ones they are and whitelisting them in my extension and then constantly going back to check if they’ve been bought out or otherwise decided to become shitheads.
Overcast iOS app comes to mind.
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.
Absolutely. I have no problem displaying a few ads with my content if it results in better content. If it’s done responsibly, which it never is. Instead, it’s always an abusive relationship.
deleted by creator
Lol that’s the dumbest thing I’ve seen in a while.
There is no free speech in news.
Dark patterns, gotta love em
This is not a dark pattern, it’s just coersion
The definition of “dark pattern” has been evolving. Today I think it means “UI design I don’t like”, or at least that’s how everyone’s been using it.
Recently saw someone accuse PayPal of using dark patterns when they clicked the submit payment button and the payment went through (they wanted one more interstitial).
Usually dark patterns are viewed as design patterns that implicitly coerce or deceive the user. As opposed to a banner that explicitly, verbally tells the user to do something.
I thought “whitelist” got cancelled for being racist? I distinctly remember being forced to rename everything to “IP Allowlist” and having to rename all my branches to “main” from “master”. Jenkins is 3rd party software, so it still has slaves… 😂
It did, and I was also doing that in some of our software in a previous job. Other terms we had to stop using were black sheep, white washing, and even gorilla.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/v7dd3d/we-need-to-stop-saying-blacklist-and-whitelist
How much have you been drinking today, my friend?
Yes?
I know you won’t see this comment, but I’ll still respond anyways.
It’s not the most inclusive language. I don’t think anyone forced you at gunpoint to rename that stuff though?
There is no such thing as being cancelled. Do you think the cancelled police show up at usa today to shut them down for using whitelist?
Just use the right ublock filter to get past these silly anti adblocks
Could you point an interested party in the direction where those filters are?
