SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
"Amid this global movement to end anti-Blackness, we credit these companies for answering our call swiftly and taking a clear stand for what's right so we can hold Facebook accountable for its racist policies," said Rashad Robinson, president of Color of Change, which is one of the groups organizing the boycott.
Almost 100 firms have joined the boycott so far, Robinson said, adding: "Facebook has a decision to make: adopt a civil rights infrastructure or continue to see key advertisers dropping from its platform."
[...] Most recently, the tension between Facebook and the content its users share has come to a head due to messages posted by President Donald Trump and his re-election campaign in the past month, amid nationwide protests in support of Black communities and against police violence. Twitter in late May took action against a Trump tweet by appending a warning that it glorified violence against protesters, in contravention of the site's rules. Facebook, however, took no action against the same content, and the company took heat from both civil rights advocates and employees over that choice.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Saturday June 27 2020, @08:57PM (6 children)
Marxism in its original form isn't a totalitarian philosophy either. For instance, in his commentary on the Communist Manifesto, Marx's BFF Fredrich Engels specifically states that communism is totally compatible with democracy, and that the simplest way to achieve the goals of communism in countries with democracy is for the lower classes to realize they're a majority and vote for their own best interests.
And in many democracies, that's already happened to a substantial degree, which is why millions of people live in highly developed countries with guaranteed freedoms similar to the US Bill of Rights, along with all-but-completely socialized health care and education system and representation on corporate boards of directors for low-level employees (possibly with a union) and the public and the government as well as shareholders. Not a complete "dictatorship of the proletariat", but definitely a system that has substantial Marxist influence and ideas, and also substantially better results by a lot of measures than the (allegedly) unfettered capitalism of many other countries.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 27 2020, @10:37PM (3 children)
The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is not totalitarian?
Then those that survive just sit around a campfire singing kumbaya in a perfect utopia. Happens every time!
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Sunday June 28 2020, @12:46AM (2 children)
Who is the proletariat? A significant majority of the population.
Who is supposed to be in charge in a democracy? A significant majority of the population.
And yes, Engels did advocate violent revolution ... in countries controlled by monarchies and totalitarian regimes. Revolt against Czar Nicholas or Emperor Franz Josef is a very different position than advocating the violent overthrow of, say, Boris Johnson.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Sunday June 28 2020, @01:08AM
Well that's the nice thing about countries with democratic systems. Why bother violently overthrowing Boris Johnson when you can simply get people to vote him out of power? In a totalitarian regime, you don't have that option.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 28 2020, @02:26AM
The idea of a democratic socialism has existed since the days of Babeuf but it's now primarily promoted by the bourgeois. There's a real problem with too many "elites", over-educated and entitled people for whom no social roles exist. These are the people pushing Marxism and they're openly hostile to the proletariat - "go pull down a statue but don't dare open a business". Is violent revolution by the proletariat against the bourgeois Marxists justified?
(Score: 2) by The Vocal Minority on Sunday June 28 2020, @03:55AM
Pray tell which countries are these Marxist paradises of which you speak? I suspect you are referring to Social Democracies that are in no way Marxist and are built upon thriving free market economies (Australia, Canada, many European countries). Socialised healthcare and education hardly a Marxist make, the concept of state education goes back at least as far as Napoleon.
I've seen this trick played multiple times here and you need to stop doing it - you are attempting to legitimise a thoroughly discredited ideology which led the the murder of a magnitude more innocent people than any other in the 20th century.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday June 30 2020, @03:47AM
"Similar". Forcing representation on corporate boards is already a violation of the freedom of association, an implicit right of the First Amendment. And there are other problems with freedom than merely undermining the "guaranteed" parts. For example, the existence of a universal public education system in the US has resulted in remarkable institutional resistance to private education as well as a degree of indoctrination. And socialized health care creates several avenues for control of health information to the ability to withhold medical care.
These systems work as long as you're in control. When you're not, it's more levers of power to use against you.
In that, they're voting against the best interests of many other parties, such as the lower classes of the future. It's better that they don't get what they want rather than ruin the future of their societies.
"Allegedly".
You're not paying attention here to the things that make highly developed countries so. Eat the seed corn and you lose next year's crop. Obsess more over the publicness of education and health care, and less over its effectiveness, will result in systems that don't do what you want.