Moderators Across Social Media Struggle to Contain Celebrations of UnitedHealthcare CEO’s Assassination
Moderators Across Social Media Struggle to Contain Celebrations of UnitedHealthcare CEO’s Assassination
Mirror: https://archive.is/0XqwR
您正在查看单个对话串。
.world is in the EU. The same laws that apply to inciting hate or violence against "The Jews" or "The Blacks" also apply to "The CEOs". And the same laws that apply to Facebook also apply to lemmy.
CEO is not an identity, nor minority. It's a political and economical position
It should be unnecessary to point this out, but here we are
That's not how the law works.
If anyone wants it a little more precise. Lemmy.world claims Dutch and German jurisdiction. An English translation of one relevant German statute may be found here (§130, but also note §131): https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_stgb/englisch_stgb.html#p1368
Yeah but i don't care abt the law
Yeah what’re they gunna do to me, double Dutch my ass in another country for posting a meme?
Meme police gonna f u up
The people operating the platform may be fined if they don't moderate according to their local law.
I've seen people here often cheer for the EU standing up to Big Tech. Well, this, too, is EU regulations.
Fuck the police.
Coming straight from the Fediground
I was born into a poor family if genetic CEOs. We've lost our ancestral claims to the shareholders. We used to conduct layoffs from the Urals to the Black Sea. Not anymore.
We were a proud people, passing down strong CEO genes.
Sounds just like a Cuban expat pining over their lost family plantation.
The new poors are the most pathetic creatures...
I don't think it has much to do with ethics in the usual sense. It's all about tribal allegiance. Facebook and the like are the enemy. Anything that seems to bother the enemy is cheered. There is no thought that laws apply generally. It reminds me of that old internet meme about conservatism. There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
I think you could make a serious argument that the CEO killing was self-defense. But it's not going to really change anything. Maybe the successor is less ruthless but they will be making decisions in the same social context; facing the same incentives and disincentives.
An armed society is a polite society. I've never believed that. I still don't. There doesn't seem to be much of a connection between gun ownership and access to health care.
I agree. It leads to problems of its own.
I can think of one disincentive in particular they probably wouldn't have considered before a couple days ago
Won't someone think of the poor CEOs!?
No. From the Case of Savva Terentyev v. Russia (police) of the European Court of Human Rights:
76. The Court further considers that the police, a law-enforcement public agency, can hardly be described as an unprotected minority or group that has a history of oppression or inequality, or that faces deep-rooted prejudices, hostility and discrimination, or that is vulnerable for some other reason, and thus may, in principle, need a heightened protection from attacks committed by insult, holding up to ridicule or slander
ACAB, for pigs and CEOs.
