• floofloof@lemmy.caEnglish
    3042·
    1 year ago

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

  • gomp@lemmy.ml
    2172·
    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?

    • morrowind@lemmy.ml
      37·
      1 year ago

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

      • helenslunch@feddit.nl
        10·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • i_promise_nothing@lemmy.world
      22·
      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.

      • gkd@lemmy.ml
        8·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • Mango@lemmy.world
      121·
      1 year ago

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

      • FaeDrifter@midwest.socialEnglish
        352·
        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.

        • Ulvain@sh.itjust.works
          31·
          1 year ago

          And that was under an overall-not-that-horrible president and with a somewhat-reasonably-not-corrupt supreme court, the next years will be a-ok I’m sure

        • nybble41@programming.dev
          33·
          1 year ago

          They ruled that people acting together have all the same rights that they would have acting individually, and that preventing someone from spending money on producing and promoting their speech effectively prevents them from being heard. Which are both perfectly true, common-sense statements.

          • FaeDrifter@midwest.socialEnglish
            3·
            1 year ago

            They ruled that people acting together have all the same rights that they would have acting individually

            Bullshit, corporations are not “people acting together”, they’re autocratic command structures where one or few people hold all the power.

            preventing someone from spending money on producing and promoting their speech effectively prevents them from being heard

            Also total bullshit, unless you agree that allowing people to be poor is a violation of the first amendment, because being poor effectively prevents them from being heard. Which you won’t.

            Which are both perfectly true, common-sense statements

            I’m already confident you don’t have a single ounce of common sense in your empty head after reading those two sentences.

          • FaeDrifter@midwest.socialEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            They ruled that people acting together have all the same rights that they would have acting individually

            Bullshit, corporations are not “people acting together”, they’re autocratic command structures where one or few people hold all the power.

            preventing someone from spending money on producing and promoting their speech effectively prevents them from being heard

            Also total bullshit, unless you agree that allowing people to be poor is a violation of the first amendment, because being poor effectively prevents them from being heard. Which you won’t.

            Which are both perfectly true, common-sense statements

            I’m already confident you don’t have a single ounce of common sense in your empty head after reading those two sentences.

    • Murdoc@sh.itjust.works
      112·
      1 year ago

      In reality, no, you’re right. Legally though, they are. And we are second class citizens.

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
      512·
      1 year ago

      I 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@beehaw.org
        101·
        1 year ago

        I 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.

  • Em Adespoton@lemmy.ca
    721·
    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.eeEnglish
      285·
      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·
        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.

      • dick_stitches@lemm.ee
        9·
        1 year ago

        I 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@lemm.eeEnglish
          2·
          1 year ago

          Oh 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.

    • Wogi@lemmy.world
      3·
      1 year ago

      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

      • bane_killgrind@lemmy.mlEnglish
        7·
        1 year ago

        Data laws aren’t for you. They are for marginalized and vulnerable demographics, who are put at risk when they get doxxed.

      • K3zi4@lemmy.worldEnglish
        4·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Wogi@lemmy.world
          1·
          1 year ago

          I think I read somewhere it was worth like .0005 cents per person. I think Netflix residuals pay better

  • NutWrench@lemmy.ml
    625·
    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

    • SrTobi@feddit.de
      8·
      1 year ago

      free 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.

  • Jaysyn@kbin.social
    452·
    1 year ago

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

  • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    441·
    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.

  • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    406·
    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

    • InputZero@lemmy.ml
      8·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • orcrist@lemm.ee
      7·
      1 year ago

      Well no. Freedom to assemble is entirely different from free speech. Both are protected by the First Amendment.

      • Uriel238 [all pronouns]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        41·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Phrodo_00@lemmy.world
          84·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • uberkalden@lemmy.world
      5·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • BreakDecks@lemmy.mlEnglish
      52·
      1 year ago

      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.