[scarface74]

So in fact, you do want the same government to “keep social media in check” that in another story that was on the front page was the government encouraging social media to censor speech? Would you want that same government to force HN to allow political topics? Would it apply to religious organizations that set up a social media platform?

You said yourself it would be a “negative outcome”.

The state pushing this is the same state that tried to force companies not to speak about diversity. They literally named a law “Stop Woke”.

[biglearner1day]

I think that the last sentence already answered all the questions you just asked.

"The government should keep social media platforms in check and protect their citizens against censorship (in any form, as long as it is lawful) on large, influential platforms."

> Would you want that same government to force HN to allow political topics?

If we were talking politics and Dang would censor anyone because of their ideology, yes, the government should set laws in place against that.

> Would it apply to religious organizations that set up a social media platform?

No.

> You said yourself it would be a “negative outcome”.

Yes, stop misinterpreting it, I had expanded on it in the same sentence.

> The state pushing this is the same state that tried to force companies not to speak about diversity

You mean the same law that "prohibits teaching or business practices that contend members of one ethnic group are inherently racist and should feel guilt for past actions committed by others"? The same law that prevents schools and business from reducing a person to just their race to assign labels of privileges regardless of all the nuances that make up an individual?

Good, stop justifying prejudice.

[scarface74]

So the government should pass laws that tell private companies what they can’t talk about. But the government should also pass laws that force companies to publish every other opinion? Isn’t that the government now controlling free speech?

Isn’t the government in fact pushing a narrative when they don’t allow companies to focus on sexual an racial harassment? Should companies not train interviewers that you shouldn’t discriminate based on someone’s accent or where they went to school?

If I set up a website where I want to talk about Christianity should I not be allowed to ban discussions about Islam or vice versa?

And there are very much “labels” when I as Black person was the dev lead for local company in the South where any time consultants and vendors came in they automatically assumed one of my reports - a white guy - was the manager.

It even happened at a business lunch with my team. The waitress asked the table in general was this one check or separate. I said one check, started pulling out my wallet and she still handed the check to the guy who I assume looked like a manager even though I was the only one reaching for a credit card.

My family is “labeled” all of the time when we “look like we don’t belong” somewhere in our city that was as recently as the mid 80s a “sundown town” and we are still very much the minority (less than 4%).

My 6 foot 5 step son who has lived in the burbs all of his life is very much “labeled” when he walks into a store.

[biglearner1day]

I find it amusing you continue with the Cathy Newman reenactment.

>So the government should pass laws that tell private companies what they can’t talk about.

Yes, they should not allow private companies to spew and enforce systems of prejudices.

> But the government should also pass laws that force companies to publish every other opinion?

Yes, that's the free speech part, you know.

> Isn’t that the government now controlling free speech?

Not even close.

> Isn’t the government in fact pushing a narrative when they don’t allow companies to focus on sexual an racial harassment?

Except it only happens when it doesn't actually happen, and you look through a lens of prejudices, like the law attempted to prohibit. We have a justice system for when it actually does happen, though.

> Should companies not train interviewers that you shouldn’t discriminate based on someone’s accent or where they went to school?

And that is exactly what the law would prevent; "teaching or business practices that contend members of one ethnic group are inherently racist and should feel guilt for past actions committed by others".

[scarface74]

So you’re in favor of the government controlling political speech that you don’t agree with? Nowhere in the DI&E training I’ve taken at the country’s second largest employer do they claim one group is inherently prejudice. We are all inherently prejudice based on our own lived experiences.

White people in metro areas are often prejudiced against “rural America”. Lighter skinned Black or often prejudiced against darker skin Black people. There have been reports that Indians are still practicing the caste system in hiring. Second and third generation Americans of the same race talk about people from their own country who are “fresh off the boat”.

But either way, seeing that you don’t see a problem with the government controlling speech that you disagree with is the very reason that the government shouldn’t have that power.

[biglearner1day]

> So you’re in favor of the government controlling political speech that you don’t agree with? Where did I say or imply any of that?

>Nowhere in the DI&E training I’ve taken at the country’s second largest employer do they claim one group is inherently prejudice.

Good, so that law you were so much against wouldn't affect you.

> We are all inherently prejudice based on our own lived experiences.

So that is your excuse to justify systematic prejudice? That is the same line of thinking racists use to justify their disgusting behavior.

> White people in metro areas are often prejudiced against “rural America”. Lighter skinned Black or often prejudiced against darker skin Black people. There have been reports that Indians are still practicing the caste system in hiring. Second and third generation Americans of the same race talk about people from their own country who are “fresh off the boat”.

What are you implying? That we shouldn't hire based on merit, but perceived race or prejudice? Your argument is all over the place, make a point.

> But either way, seeing that you don’t see a problem with the government controlling speech that you disagree with is the very reason that the government shouldn’t have that power.

No, that is not what you are seeing, but what you want to see. Feel free to re-read the entire thread because you seem to come to conclusions of your own.

I've repeated countless times that the problem is prejudice, not free speech. You're willingly ignoring what is said and make up conclusions for yourself.

[scarface74]

DI&E training is not about “hiring based on race”. It’s about just the opposite. Treating people differently based on race because we all have implicit biases. Some of us are just intelligent enough to recognize it in ourselves and not allow it to affect our actions.

But the law is not about hiring. The law is about what companies are allowed to include in their training and the government was trying to decide what could and could not be said by private corporations.

The government wanted to in fact control speech - not hiring decisions.

Are you okay with the government controlling what private companies can say during their training?