you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Sw0rdofDam0cles 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Given my interactions with most techies, I never had any confidence that any corporation ever really did support a free and open internet.

[–]madcow-5 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

If it's a public corporation, they're legally required to put profit ahead of all else.

[–]insta 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

This is simply not true. Corporations put virtue signalling ahead of profits quite frequently.

I will of course agree that much of the virtue signalling is vapid and empty, but this libertarian talking point that all corporations care about is profit doesn't explain why every major corporation has a diversity initiative or board or department.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

But they virtue signal for profit. Look at the opposite end, like Nestle. That company's reputation is awful, lot of people avoid any of their very numerous products. People want to buy from the good guys.

[–]insta 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Oh please, Nestle circlejerk is exclusive to Reddit.

They bring their own water from home in a hydroflask and pretend they're making a difference while buying from one of many of Nestle's subsidiaries.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You mean I'm not saving the world by not eating a Hot Pocket? I guess not, but there's just companies I don't want having my money.

[–]whistlepig 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agreed. Not a good business decision to kick off the president of the US... and then start work on tossing half of the country. Clearly business suicide and there clearly is an alternative motive that has nothing to do with financial profit. Maybe just further the divide or maybe there is more to it than that.

[–]AcceleratedWallops 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ford v Dodge

[–]mrwizardd 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

corporations are not required to put profit ahead of all else.

[–]AcceleratedWallops 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ford v Dodge

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Mozilla is literally a non-profit, which means they're legally required not to make a profit.

[–]whistlepig 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

old man here to say it was different in the 90's....

[–]insta 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Start talking to them about lolis and suddenly most of them will flip to ardent defenders of free expression and art.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Free speech for pedos, but not for patriots.

[–]Jesus-Christ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Their only other line of defense is that it's "just a cartoon bro" implying it doesn't actually sexualize minors because it's "fake". Completely ignoring the fact that the drawing is catered to the pedophilic fantasy to begin with. The idea alone is enough for any sane person to realize it's immoral.

[–]insta 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I always just dismiss it with "If you're jerking off to Yaoi, you're gay. If you jerk to loli, you're a pedophile".

Never seen one of them make an actual rebuttal to that, especially since it uses their own fanfic.

[–]Jesus-Christ 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Tbh I don't even know what Yaoi is, but I'm going to assume it's just as degenerare as Loli.