That doesn’t mean that they have to tolerate it on their property. People (certainly here) seem to be expect that they can go anywhere and say anything and everyone is supposed to just take it. Companies are allowed to ban you unless it violates an applicable law and the First Amendment (in the USA) is for protection from the government, not a private business. If I talk trash about Walmart in one of their stores they can have me leave. I don’t have some special protection.
4.20%. I was giving an example. I’m not jumping on the hate train to try to placate fanatics who obviously think that anything goes when they don’t like something. I don’t like or trust Microsoft (and have bad-mouthed them many times) but I will not go to their “properties” to insult them and I certainly don’t expect them to be fine with it. Call me a shrill if you want to but I get the impression that you just want to be an asshole and want others to be as well.
I could have sworn I used shill. I don’t know if it’s my fingers betraying me or if it’s autocorrect.
I’m using going to Microsoft HQ as an analogy. Going to their forums or groups or Discord server, etc., and causing grief should be treated like griefers anywhere. I’m not saying to not use Microslop at all, just that if you are causing grief somewhere it’s understandable if you get kicked out.
Don’t get me wrong. I believe that the ones at Microsoft responsible need to have an Ed Gruberman experience. I’m just going to behave myself while on their property.
Discord is not their property. It is just a social network they use. And what you call griefing is what most people call protesting. If CEO just never made a big deal about AI being slop, there would be less hate. But since we know it hurts his feelings, it is the Barbra Streisand effect.
I am not in any of their servers, but I am boycotting their services. There is no point in paying for games from them, if the money goes to Palestinian genocide.
the First Amendment (in the USA) is for protection from the government, not a private business
Increasingly becoming a distinction without a difference, as corporate and government interests become more and more intertwined.
(Suppose that the government politely asks Microsoft to ban all mention of “genocide” on Microsoft platforms, while making it very clear that it’s completely optional, the government just asking for a favor, and it’s not at all required, no penalty for failing to do so. Probably not even an official request. Just, say, the President rambling on social media about how it would be very “great again” if Microsoft did that. And Microsoft eagerly and voluntarily bans mention of “genocide”. Later, the government allows Microsoft to make a big merger without worrying about anti-trust laws, and also gives them a significant tax break. Were first amendment rights violated?)
What you describe is like how the Mafia leaders claim that they never gave an order to commit a crime. Al Capone was very difficult to pin down.
Since Microsoft could decline the government’s “request”, then I suspect that technically First Amendment rights were not violated. It’s how companies have been getting away for essentially spying for the government.
That doesn’t mean that they have to tolerate it on their property. People (certainly here) seem to be expect that they can go anywhere and say anything and everyone is supposed to just take it. Companies are allowed to ban you unless it violates an applicable law and the First Amendment (in the USA) is for protection from the government, not a private business. If I talk trash about Walmart in one of their stores they can have me leave. I don’t have some special protection.
Only about 4-5% of the world lives in the U.S., I am not one of them. Stop acting like a shill.
4.20%. I was giving an example. I’m not jumping on the hate train to try to placate fanatics who obviously think that anything goes when they don’t like something. I don’t like or trust Microsoft (and have bad-mouthed them many times) but I will not go to their “properties” to insult them and I certainly don’t expect them to be fine with it. Call me a shrill if you want to but I get the impression that you just want to be an asshole and want others to be as well.
I said shill, not shrill. None of us are going to the company in person. The ceo wants people to stop calling ai slop. This is why people are calling it Microslop. Also, people are boycotting Microsoft, because they are helping with the Palestinian genocide. I try to limit all my purchases from Microsoft if possible. The company is evil, the founder was on the Epstein list, and is also evil.
I could have sworn I used shill. I don’t know if it’s my fingers betraying me or if it’s autocorrect.
I’m using going to Microsoft HQ as an analogy. Going to their forums or groups or Discord server, etc., and causing grief should be treated like griefers anywhere. I’m not saying to not use Microslop at all, just that if you are causing grief somewhere it’s understandable if you get kicked out.
Don’t get me wrong. I believe that the ones at Microsoft responsible need to have an Ed Gruberman experience. I’m just going to behave myself while on their property.
Discord is not their property. It is just a social network they use. And what you call griefing is what most people call protesting. If CEO just never made a big deal about AI being slop, there would be less hate. But since we know it hurts his feelings, it is the Barbra Streisand effect.
I am not in any of their servers, but I am boycotting their services. There is no point in paying for games from them, if the money goes to Palestinian genocide.
Discord server, not Discord itself.
Increasingly becoming a distinction without a difference, as corporate and government interests become more and more intertwined.
(Suppose that the government politely asks Microsoft to ban all mention of “genocide” on Microsoft platforms, while making it very clear that it’s completely optional, the government just asking for a favor, and it’s not at all required, no penalty for failing to do so. Probably not even an official request. Just, say, the President rambling on social media about how it would be very “great again” if Microsoft did that. And Microsoft eagerly and voluntarily bans mention of “genocide”. Later, the government allows Microsoft to make a big merger without worrying about anti-trust laws, and also gives them a significant tax break. Were first amendment rights violated?)
What you describe is like how the Mafia leaders claim that they never gave an order to commit a crime. Al Capone was very difficult to pin down.
Since Microsoft could decline the government’s “request”, then I suspect that technically First Amendment rights were not violated. It’s how companies have been getting away for essentially spying for the government.