|
|
|
|
|
|
by like_any_other
106 days ago
|
|
|
> Replace home with business, and then replace business with a free product that you're not even paying for and that's this situation. And then replace business with country and society that enables that business' existence, and in whose sovereign land that business is located (i.e. in whose house it is), and that's still this situation. > Free speech in general is a legal concept. So if someone says "free speech", you just have no idea whatsoever what they're talking about, until they also tell you which country/jurisdiction they're talking about, do you? And I didn't make a moral argument - I said that there is a moral (not just legal) argument to be made. I don't have the time or inclination to walk you through why free expression is desirable, or why letting a handful of giant entities crush speech and smaller businesses is undesirable. If you need that explained to you, I don't think we'll see eye to eye no matter how long we debate. |
|
|
Yes, so it is a legal construct then? countries and societies generally exist under the rule of law. In the US, both legally and socially, we've decided to accept a free-market capitalist way. Under that social agreement, both individuals and companies have certain rights and entitlements over their products and services.
Under a more universal moral regime, if you have a good reason to believe someone might come in harms way, you have an obligation to do something about it so long as it is within your means to do. Preventing others from coming into harm supersedes the presumed entitlements of third parties. In this case, Google is nice enough to let users disable GSB or bypass GSB warnings. When a certificate for a website expires for example, similar to GSB every browser shows a warning. almost every single time, the site isn't compromised and there is no MITM attack happening, but we accept that is the best course of action, I don't see you protesting that because you understand it is the right thing to do. But in this case you just don't like GSB and you're looking for some moral ground to stand on because no other ground will let you.
> So if someone says "free speech", you just have no idea whatsoever what they're talking about, until they also tell you which country/jurisdiction they're talking about, do you?
You just said it isn't a legal concept, so why does that matter? But context does matter, in this case we're on a US based website talking about a US based company.
> why free expression is desirable, or why letting a handful of giant entities crush speech and smaller businesses is undesirable.
aha! you don't need to walk me through anything, but I think you confuse what is desirable and undesirable with what is moral and immoral. for desirable and undesirable, you use the law to enact your preferences. your desires however have no bearing on morality.
I don't think we'll see eye to eye either, but because I suspect our understand of morality and the rule of law is not aligned.