711
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2024
711 points (94.7% liked)
Technology
59242 readers
3519 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Get the fuck out of here with the straw man. Google is and has been a problem in more ways than one but they were within their rights to fire people. This is just a dumb ass question to divert right into your already justified opinion because Google is "evil" and it needs to stay that way but if you can't see that a company has a right to fire when you are getting paid on their time then you are just as unreasonable.
It sucks for these people but you are just as much in the circlejerk on Lemmy as everyone else if your first statement is a question asking something like this because you can't discuss it and would rather find any other reasons to just say "But Google bad." No one is disagreeing with this that Google isn't a monopoly, powerhouse, and abuses its uses. The point and statement here is that Google had a right to fire them.
corporations are not people. I don't give a shit about their "rights", I don't give a shit about their dignity, abd I don't give a shit about their assets. why the fuck do you? do you tjinkgoogle gives a shit about your 'rights '? dignity? assets? are you high?
they are doing bad things and need to he stopped.they aren't people, they do not have feelings, and there is no moral harm from doing anything to one. all is permitted, barring collateral damage, which might be permitted.
there is a moral good in stopping them from doing a bad thing. in making them less efficient at doing the bad thing.
them doing bad thing is bad. there aren't rules-not for them; I think this is pretty well established. there is no 'allowed' or 'disallowed' if the rules only apply to one party. your rules-as-substitute-for-morality shit completely breaks down outside a bourgeoise white mid 20th century context; these days its just victim blaming gaslighting bullshit and everybody knows it.