@[email protected] to [email protected] • 1 month agoProprietary vs Open Source Backdoorslemy.lolimagemessage-square92fedilinkarrow-up11.39K
arrow-up11.39KimageProprietary vs Open Source Backdoorslemy.lol@[email protected] to [email protected] • 1 month agomessage-square92fedilink
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink1•1 month agoSecond to last thing is punishable by fine in most of Europe, last one is… on the rise… Company free speech is allowed, but there’s laws to keep them from being total asshats
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink8•1 month ago Company free speech is allowed, but there’s laws to keep them from being total asshats “Things” shouldn’t have free speech - only people. It’s just such a corrupt, dumb thing.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink1•1 month agoAs a non-native English speaker, I’ve assumed it meant that companies can put anything they want in their contracts
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink5•1 month agoNo it’s basically that companies can put money into politics.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink1•1 month agoThere was a court case called the ‘Citizens United v FEC’ that ended up ruling in favor of corporations; It said corporations and organizations and unions can ‘donate’ as much money as they want to political candidates i.e. legalized bribery.
Second to last thing is punishable by fine in most of Europe, last one is… on the rise…
Company free speech is allowed, but there’s laws to keep them from being total asshats
“Things” shouldn’t have free speech - only people. It’s just such a corrupt, dumb thing.
As a non-native English speaker, I’ve assumed it meant that companies can put anything they want in their contracts
No it’s basically that companies can put money into politics.
There was a court case called the ‘Citizens United v FEC’ that ended up ruling in favor of corporations; It said corporations and organizations and unions can ‘donate’ as much money as they want to political candidates i.e. legalized bribery.