framapotari

What does justifying its share price mean? Does Tesla justify its share price?

Are you including countries other than the US in today's world?

A ton of things seem like easy money but aren't for most people. Many of those have a risk of long-term negative consequences. You just described a large part of life.

What makes sex work special compared to say, pilots, police, electricians, miners, fishermen, divers, construction workers and many many others who also need to balance their choice against a very real risk of long-term negative consequences?

Naivety seems to imply that what they are doing is wrong, or a mistake, but they don't understand it fully. Don't you think that's a paternalistic view? Do you know what's best for those women?

I think they mean that American news tend to reduce everything down to exactly two sides. Is X a Good Thing or Bad Thing. Are you For or Against Y. Etc.

No, the NZ rebate is based on production costs, which doesn't count funds spent on purchasing the rights to a project.

Unless you're a student and want to hold up a sign saying "BONG HITS 4 JESUS" outside of school property.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morse_v._Frederick

> In free countries you just broadcast

Sure, and anyone who is banned on YouTube can still "just broadcast". Their rights were not harmed in any way.

To borrow your analogy, you may have the right to eat pancakes but you don't have the right to eat at IHOP. You can be banned from every pancake selling diner in town yet you can still eat pancakes. No one has stopped you from eating pancakes.

Where is this right to a broadcasting platform to publish anything you wish as long as it is legal enumerated?

I don't think a private company choosing what they host on their platform is total unchallenged censorship. With such a vast gap in understanding of terms I don't think discussion will get us anywhere.

You don't want private entities making decisions on what content they host on their platforms, but you do want the government to make that decision (host everything) and force those private entities to abide by that decision under threat of penalty? And that is how we avoid dictatorships in your view?

> Even if abolishing private censorship would cause the scenario you outlined, that wouldn't be worse than the current situation

This seems like a statement with nothing behind it but your confidence that it is truth. I believe that could be much worse than the current situation.

Where did the police come in? We were talking about Youtube selecting what to make available on their platform. Is that analogous to the police stifling your speech in your view?

> If someone is dying because of a video, the fix is not in removal of the video

It might not be 'the' fix but it could be 'a' fix. If your interest is preventing deaths that is.

That's one way to read it, but it might just be a related anecdote that the poster wanted to share. Without any explicit mention of blaming modern technology I don't think it's fair to make the assumption that the text is doing that.

Just because you respond to something doesn't mean you are either refuting it or agreeing with it.

I don't think anyone was blaming modern technology, or anything specific, for this nonsense?

> For example, if someone is posting about something harmful the videos should remain and the person who does that should face the consequences.

Ok, so now a video is up and people are tricked by it and injure themselves in the process. Some people die. Is that an acceptable cost? Does your solution make any considerations for ongoing harm?

If you're pro-choice then I wouldn't expect you to say that in some cases you'd be offended if the person had a choice.

> Having a union form at your own company is an indication that you failed your employees in one way or another.

This is absolutely untrue. A kind of propaganda talking point that paints unions like some kind of vicious weapon that you want workers to have if they absolutely need to defend themselves against assault, but you'd rather not have the assault take place at all.

Unions give workers concentrated power to balance against the concentrated power of corporations. That's it. They are one side of the scale.

This is an extremely American -- and misinformed -- view of unions. Where I'm from unions are the default, not formed as a last resort to unjust treatment but a natural counterbalance to corporate/institutional power.

Someone saying they'd rather not have their workers form a union is not pro-union. That's like saying you support workers sharing information but you would be offended if your workers talked about their salaries because that would infer that they don't trust you to be fair.