Nonsense, if you tolerate disinformation you get more disinformation. Countries that fail to address it will fall and the world will be worse off because of it. The right to free speech does not include the right to a free platform or free promotion.
It does include the right to access the public square though. And if a particular free platform has become a public square by virtue of size then I think it does include the right to access that platform.
Such platforms should probably not be permitted to promote in a general and unrestricted sense the content of particular speakers that make use of them. That's no better than clandestine government propaganda. An obvious wolf in sheep's clothing.
I hear this question posed a lot in this context, but we already done this now don't we? Someone (or ones) decides which laws are valid, which educational material to teach our kids etc. Are those not ok because some person or body of people have decided for the rest of society?
This narrative has killed many republicans who feared getting vaccinated, and it will only kill more. One could argue that it is their own actions, but I am not keen on blaming people for their circumstances.
The answer is we decide what is disinformation through our institutions and the value we place on them. Your and I's opinion on certain matters should never weigh remotely as much as an expert's on a particular topic unless we are such experts.
We ought to measure the value of one's speech through the scrutiny it has to go through to be published at trusted channels.
Agreed, disinformation is dangerous and it should be treated as such. Just because you say/write it doesn't mean I'm required to host it. Freedom to promote stupidity does not outweigh my right to unplug my microphone.
They will question your decisions and directions instead of blindly following them. You can have curious employees, or obedient employees, but usually not both. You can somewhat pave over this with comp (tech does this), but most of the economy cannot.
I’ve always thought of that as something like “first order smart”. Smart enough to start forming opinions fast but not able to decouple from the need to analyze enough to “just work.” Or patience. Or something.
There are many jobs at which I would personally underperform out of sheer boredom, possibly inventing ways to stay entertained. Army Infantry, cashier, call center worker, landscaper, night watchman, and hundreds of others where well over half of the population would outperform me.
What do you mean by "pretend ecological issues?" Climate control isn't an ideology it's a necessity created by failed policies. Climate change doesn't care about your political or economic ideology.
The idea that the Earth is warming and ecological systems are changing is Climate Change. There seems to be evidence and scientific consensus behind the fact that humans are playing a part.
On the other hand, the people proclaiming that humans are inherently bad for the planet, that we need to have fewer children, tear down our economic system and eat a plant-based diet aren’t practicing “Climate Science”. They are ideologues. You can spot them from a distance because they’re the ones against Nuclear Power, Desalination, GMOs, and other solutions don’t require require society to subscribe to their social framework. When people like me say we’re skeptical of Climate Science, we’re usually referring to the latter and not the former.
Climate control ideology grows right out of "climate change doesn't care about you*". This happens precisely because people like yourself wield "climate change" politically, and thus give power to groups that pretend to care about your concerns.
Ecologies are important discussions, science is an important argument, and weaponizing climate change is basic ideology at work (same as all pseudo protectionist politics).
Workers should be entitled to a minimum wage, business expense reimbursements, employee benefits, rest breaks, and all the other benefits afforded to employees under California state law. AB5 is a good law and should be implemented Federally.
People who run their own businesses using their own equipment (truck owner operators) should be free to negotiate their own contracts with whomever they choose to work for under whatever terms both parties deem acceptable.
Yeah I don't get it. The drivers own their trucks. This makes finding a new job exceptionally easy and there's no capital expenditure on behalf of the hiring company for new equipment. Moreover, truckers are free to change between shippers as much as they want.
Employees should be entitled to employee benefits. Business owners should not.
If I start a business to write iPhone apps, who exactly should be responsible for paying me a minimum wage to do that, covering my business expenses, and affording me health insurance until my app business is self-sustaining (which might never happen)?
A recent poll suggests that seventy percent of Americans think enacting new gun control laws should take precedence over protecting ownership rights. So a larger portion of the country does agree with this.
> So a larger portion of the country does agree with this.
but 50% will vote red (roughly), 50% will vote blue (roughly), and the red party as a whole has displayed 0 interest in banning the "loophole" that is... an 18 year old can pass a quick online background check (near impossible to check the background of a young adult when history is so little) and be given an AR-15 legally
so
70% poll is useless unless our democracy/voting structure somehow changes in a way that would allow those 70% of people to have their opinions result in change
It seems pretty likely that a vasculatory inflammatory virus that also infects the immune system will have lasting, long-term damaging effects on your organs and cardiovascular system.
Considering the amount of fraud and theft in the crypto community, a little regulation could be a good thing. Normal people want good regulations to protect them from bad actors. That's the point of good governance.
