floofloof ( @floofloof@lemmy.ca ) English186•8 months agoAh yes, just like how free speech means corporations must be allowed to bribe politicians.
gomp ( @gomp@lemmy.ml ) 132•8 months agoDidn’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?
orcrist ( @orcrist@lemm.ee ) 2•8 months agoIf you disable the ad blocker, they’ll send you some free Iranian yoghurt.
slacktoid ( @slacktoid@lemmy.ml ) English2•8 months agoItll also fix the Israel Palestine conflict.
miss_brainfart ( @miss_brainfart@lemmy.ml ) 96•8 months agoWe are dedicated to safe and ethical advertising practices
Mates, that ship has long sailed
morrowind ( @morrowind@lemmy.ml ) 24•8 months agoThere are ethical ad services, but I’ve never seen outside of one random blog site.
narc0tic_bird ( @narc0tic_bird@lemm.ee ) 8•8 months agoOvercast iOS app comes to mind.
helenslunch ( @helenslunch@feddit.nl ) 8•8 months agoI’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.
planetaryprotection ( @planetaryprotection@midwest.social ) English54•8 months agoCorporations are not people, therefore do not have a right to free speech.
Possibly linux ( @possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip ) English4•8 months agoI disagree. If you think USA today or any other news outlet shouldn’t have free speech then why bother with free speech to begin with.
ursakhiin ( @ursakhiin@beehaw.org ) 10•8 months agoI don’t think USA today or any other outlet should be protected. I do think the reporters that work there should be protected.
Corporations should be held accountable for what they say or “strongly encourage” others to say. Individuals should be protected if they get things wrong, though.
NutWrench ( @NutWrench@lemmy.ml ) 47•8 months agoYeah, advertising is not “free speech.” It’s a way for corporations to steal your life from you, 60 seconds at a time
Stumblinbear ( @Stumblinbear@pawb.social ) 6•8 months ago… They mean that you’re supporting free speech by disabling and block and supporting them
Em Adespoton ( @adespoton@lemmy.ca ) 43•8 months agoI 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 ( @Deconceptualist@lemm.ee ) English17•8 months agoWell 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.
dick_stitches ( @dick_stitches@lemm.ee ) 8•8 months agoI don’t think they’re arguing that the ads are part of the free speech, I think they’re arguing the ads are a revenue source that allows them to fund free speech. Blocking ads in this case is more akin to sitting down at the newsstand for two hours while you read the paper, then putting the paper back without having paid for anything. Yes online advertising has become a massive breach of privacy, but they have no obligation to give away their product for free, and looking at ads is how you pay for it.
Free speech ≠ free beer.
Deconceptualist ( @Deconceptualist@lemm.ee ) English2•8 months agoOh I intentionally wasn’t touching the financial side of it, that’s a whole other mess. But yeah I know it’s inseparable these days and agree with your points.
Jaysyn ( @Jaysyn@kbin.social ) 33•8 months agoInjection hackers do not give a single wet fuck about your “safe and ethical advertising practices”.
rob64 ( @rob64@startrek.website ) 1•8 months agoAlright this just has me wondering which is worse, a wet fuck or a dry one…
Mr. w00t ( @w00t@lemmy.ml ) English30•8 months agoFREE* speech for everyone
*conditions_apply
Natanael ( @Natanael@slrpnk.net ) 12•8 months agoFee speech
SrTobi ( @SrTobi@feddit.de ) 2•8 months agofree installation, free admission, free appraisal, free alterations, free delivery, free home trial, and free parking. No cash? No problem. No kidding. No muss, no fuss, no risk, no obligation, no red tape, no down payment, no entry fee, no hidden charges, no purchase necessary, no one will call on you, no payments of interest 'til September. But limited time only, though, so act now, order today, send no money. Offer good while supplies last. Two to a customer, each item sold separately, batteries not included, mileage may vary, all sales are final, allow six weeks for delivery. Some items not available, some assembly required, some restrictions may apply.
uriel238 ( @uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) 26•8 months agoWhether 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.
ExtremeDullard ( @ExtremeDullard@lemmy.sdf.org ) 23•8 months agoWhat’s “safe and ethical advertising practices”? Is it like pacifist inclusive Nazism?
krolden ( @krolden@lemmy.ml ) 5•8 months agoOur ethics dictate we charge the advertisers the highest possible amount so we get more freedom bucks from them
- dadaredone ( @dadaredone@lemmy.ml ) 23•8 months ago
If garbage had a face.
katy ✨ ( @cupcakezealot@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) 23•8 months agowhy 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
orcrist ( @orcrist@lemm.ee ) 5•8 months agoWell no. Freedom to assemble is entirely different from free speech. Both are protected by the First Amendment.
uriel238 ( @uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) 3•8 months agoThe 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.
InputZero ( @InputZero@lemmy.ml ) 4•8 months agoIt’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.
PM_ME_FAT_ENBIES ( @PM_ME_FAT_ENBIES@lib.lgbt ) English3•8 months agoWhy do Americans think that American laws are the same thing as universal concepts?
Kaidao ( @Kaidao@lemmy.ml ) 22•8 months agoLol how insane and out of touch
- java ( @java@beehaw.org ) 21•8 months 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?
NutWrench ( @NutWrench@lemmy.ml ) 12•8 months ago“Hit yourself in the balls with a mallet to prove how tough you are.”
“Step in this pile of dog crap to prove how brave you are.”
DragonTypeWyvern ( @DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe ) 3•8 months agoUSA today? Somewhere between Newsweek and National Inquirer.
Honestly, they probably did OP a favor.
nick ( @nick@midwest.social ) 17•8 months agoGet fucked, USA Today