Comments
LacidOnex t1_j8pyopb wrote
Why can't we have stronger libel laws? Wouldn't an age of "shut the fuck up unless you can prove it" be beneficial?
xygge t1_j8qh4mv wrote
>Why can't we have stronger libel laws?
The price you pay for stronger libel laws is the dampening of speech and a greater possibility that the rich/powerful will be able to just shut down speech they don't like.
GreatArchitect t1_j8vjknj wrote
Yep, I live in a country with strong libel laws. Politicians use it to shut people up all the time.
GoGaslightYerself t1_j8reg1l wrote
Speech is bad! Words are hurtful! Somebody please protect us from all these terrifying IDEAS!!!
corrado33 t1_j8rkwro wrote
> FALSE Speech is bad! FALSE Words are hurtful! Somebody please protect us from all these terrifying UNTRUE IDEAS!!!
Fixed it for you.
GoGaslightYerself t1_j8roan2 wrote
And...who's gonna be the arbiter of what "truth" is "allowed" to see the light of day? LOL
Allow me to hazard a wild guess: You?
The intolerant censors, speech police and self-appointed magistrates of the Ministry of Truth in today's Left are the McCarthyites of the 21st century. Let us know how that works out for you.
RockySterling t1_j8rstqb wrote
My guy, the Florida government is LITERALLY banning the teaching of most of black history and getting the curriculum changed nationwide, AND prevents teachers from acknowledging same-sex families, AND a ton of states literally prevent you from advocating for boycotts of Israel. Tell me again how pronouns or whatever are the biggest threat facing society
GoGaslightYerself t1_j8rxo22 wrote
> Tell me again how pronouns or whatever are the biggest threat facing society
Nice straw man, LOL.
As for what they teach in schools, that's state-sponsored speech. It's paid for by taxpayers, so taxpayers and parents ought to have a say in what their kids are being indoctrinated with, yes?
What if the shoe were on the other foot, and a bunch of right-wingers were indoctrinating kids in schools? Would you be such a fearlessly principled advocate of allowing them to tell your kids whatever they want?
Censoring/suppressing what ordinary people want to say -- on the Internet or anywhere else -- is completely different from state-sponsored, taxpayer-funded speech in schools, particularly when it's the state that's doing the suppressing/censoring of speech by ordinary citizens. But nice try.
assjackal t1_j8s17ve wrote
>What if the shoe were on the other foot, and a bunch of right-wingers were indoctrinating kids in schools?
That's literally what is happening right now you fucking muppet.
Signed, someone currently standing on Florida soil.
RockySterling t1_j8skli8 wrote
My guy, I had abstinence-only sex ed in high school. My teacher literally held up a poster board that said "Abstinence." Did your brain only start forming memories in the last 10 years?
GoGaslightYerself t1_j8snww4 wrote
You forgot to capitalize LITERALLY, junior.
(Do the CAPS mean it's figuratively LITERAL, or LITERALLY figurative? And why does LITERALLY every post have to include "LITERALLY"? It's almost as amazing as, well, AMAZING.)
BLAZEtms t1_j8ru1xv wrote
Sorry, which side is openly against womens rights, trans rights and both parties ability to have their voice heard fairly?
We dont want A truth. We want THE truth on the scientific, political and social matters we deal with that are highly misrepresented by the media a.k.a the trans rights arguments happening in the UK right now.
Not everyone who's on the right is homophobic/transphobic, but everyone who votes right in this age supports a hateful ideology against these groups whether they agree with it or not. Because you would be voting for politicians who act in bad faith for their own benefit and to stir up hatred.
If you dont want to move forward with the progress of humanity then you will be left behind
Why does marginalised groups having a bigger voice damage your freedom of speech? They were never your enemy, the rich fucks in your pockets pointing at these groups for "stealing your wallet" are the enemy.
CanadianGurlfren t1_j8qbmtp wrote
Maybe, maybe not. Can you fucking prove it will?
LacidOnex t1_j8qc4nc wrote
Yes, but to prove it you'll have to let me cram an entire grapefruit into tucker Carlson's mouth.
CanadianGurlfren t1_j8qckw1 wrote
I used to eat grapefruit with a spoon. Not anymore, now strangers shove whole grapefruits in my mouth. What's going on? What happened to our country?
[deleted] t1_j8qdl9r wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j8ro5zz wrote
[deleted]
Steampunk-1889 t1_j8rsto6 wrote
The problem is that the more you ask the police or government to decide what the media publishes the less of a free press you have. That's why other mechanisms are better - like publicly funded news that keeps the others honest, or strong media unions that stop companies firing all their staff and employing interns to just rewrite trash.
Mordewolt t1_j8snzgx wrote
sOmE rUsSiAn LiE about some actor not being butthurt that a guy drew his face on a wall and wrote some words under it WHILE IN FACT said actor is indeed very butthurt
​
if he wants a legal body to represent his rights on a russian soil maybe he should lobby to make these legal bodies return to the russian soil, who knows, maybe he'll sway some people lol
Steampunk-1889 t1_j8spvw5 wrote
Most coherent Russian apologist.
Mordewolt t1_j8syeeh wrote
the HORRORS! What would Bruce DOOOOOOOOOOOOO all on his own without the WB and MGM backing him against the soulless warmongering MACHINE
jamescookenotthatone t1_j8oxczz wrote
>The tech used in the advert was created by Deepcake, which describes itself as an AI company specializing in deepfakes.
>Deepcake told the BBC it had worked closely with Willis' team on the advert.
>"What he definitely did is that he gave us his consent (and a lot of materials) to make his Digital Twin," they said.
>The company says it has a unique library of high-resolution celebrities, influencers and historical figures.
>On its website, Deepcake promotes its work with an apparent quote from Mr Willis: "I liked the precision of my character. It's a great opportunity for me to go back in time.
>"The neural network was trained on content of Die Hard and Fifth Element, so my character is similar to the images of that time."
>However, Willis's agent told the BBC, "Please know that Bruce has no partnership or agreement with this Deepcake company."
>...
>In a statement from Deepcake, the company said reports that it had bought the rights to Bruce Willis's face were inaccurate.
>"The wording about rights is wrong… Bruce couldn't sell anyone any rights, they are his by default," a representative for the company said.
Wait how does that work? I assume the Deepcake people are just lying or there is some strange miscommunication.
AnthillOmbudsman t1_j8q2y8f wrote
This is the inevitable result of news media parroting everything they get from corporate sources and posting it as credible "news".
vemenium t1_j8qmjer wrote
Well, to be fair, if news sites can’t have unpaid interns and freelancers working for pennies type up corporate press releases with zero research and add a few sentences of forced commentary, they’ll never be able to churn out enough content to get enough clicks for a good number of people to stumble on one of their affiliate links.
EarlGrey_Picard OP t1_j8oxjuw wrote
They most definitely are.
CanadianGurlfren t1_j8qbpp4 wrote
Lying is very effective in the information age.
NeuHundred t1_j8qgej6 wrote
So Deepcake is a lie?
Eric_Partman t1_j8q67z7 wrote
Those two aren’t mutually exclusive.
Salmizu t1_j8r22y2 wrote
Russians doing something illegal? No way. They would never do anything wrong
tobiasprinz t1_j8takl3 wrote
If I was them, I'd have a video of Bruce Willis selling his rights to use his likeness.
[deleted] t1_j8rdj68 wrote
[removed]
Steampunk-1889 t1_j8oo1ka wrote
This shows how dangerously polluted the media food chain is. A rag like the Daily Mail picks up some Russian lie and the other cheapskate papers run with it. Even Reuters, who are supposed to do their own work.
Shows how for all its faults the BBC still has a useful role.