▲ 1470 ▼ Proprietary vs Open Source Backdoors (lemy.lol) submitted 1 year ago by icegladiator@lemy.lol to c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world 96 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] BudgetBandit@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) 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 permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] tfm@europe.pub 9 points 1 year ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BudgetBandit@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) As a non-native English speaker, I’ve assumed it meant that companies can put anything they want in their contracts permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] tfm@europe.pub 5 points 1 year ago No it's basically that companies can put money into politics. permalink fedilink source parent [–] brendansimms@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tfm@europe.pub 9 points 1 year ago (1 child) 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. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] BudgetBandit@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) As a non-native English speaker, I’ve assumed it meant that companies can put anything they want in their contracts permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] tfm@europe.pub 5 points 1 year ago No it's basically that companies can put money into politics. permalink fedilink source parent [–] brendansimms@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BudgetBandit@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) As a non-native English speaker, I’ve assumed it meant that companies can put anything they want in their contracts permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] tfm@europe.pub 5 points 1 year ago No it's basically that companies can put money into politics. permalink fedilink source parent [–] brendansimms@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] tfm@europe.pub 5 points 1 year ago No it's basically that companies can put money into politics. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] brendansimms@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago 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. permalink fedilink source parent
