Yep, like this one, though it could earn more in bonds or investments.

Low-interest loans are great, too: if they don’t need to be repaid right away, they can be leveraged to earn back more than their cost.

Direct link: Mastercard rule 5.12.7 Illegal or Brand-damaging Transactions

Tweet of their attempt to deny responsibility: great opportunity to wreck their brand.

Never heard of sweater weather, hate sweaters. Hate oil companies, too.

Direct link: Mastercard rule 5.12.7 Illegal or Brand-damaging Transactions

As much as we hate x, airing negative publicity over their attempt to deny responsibility by directly citing back their policy & asking questions might be good.

I thought credit was the main selling point.

• Ability to dispute & reverse charges.
• Flexibility to keep cash in an account earning higher interest until payment is due.
• Not having to constantly check enough cash is in your low interest checking account (which you’ll keep low so your cash earns more interest elsewhere & to minimize losses in case of unauthorized debits).

Distasteful surely must be protected but that wasn’t my point, my point was that hate-speech is often not distasteful is is harmful. It seems that it is not harmful enough, and if a hateful tweet doesn’t make people go on a witch-hunt it’s ok?

Is the harm directly from the speech? Ideas aren’t actions & uncritically harming people is a choice.

We’re all capable of reading stupid shit then taking it upon ourselves to harm people. Yet how many of us do? If I harmed someone, I wouldn’t consider shit I read & uncritically acted on a valid excuse. I’d consider failure to think in the least bit critically before acting a total & culpable lapse in judgement.

Should we not hold every thinking person to that standard? Do you hold yourself to a different standard & think that would be a valid excuse?

Rights/liberties necessarily limit each other where they conflict. A right to be unharmed, for example, may limit freedom of expression.

Beyond necessary limits, principles don’t need compromises. The linked harm principle explains a well-recognized, necessary limit.

In practice, it’s treated as narrow limits on incitement to imminent, lawless action; deprivation to peace & privacy; defamation; violation of intellectual property. Basically, anything that directly harms no matter if ignored.

In contrast, merely offensive expression can simply be ignored (or reciprocated with expression of any kind) without conflicting with rights, so it doesn’t need to be limited.

Thus, terroristic threats or targeted, persistent threats (that put a reasonable person in fear of their safety, thus depriving their rights) aren’t protected. Neither are false claims that deprive them their livelihood nor false warnings that cause panic & reckless endangerment.

Blanket statements that vilify a group of people, ill wishes, falsehoods that don’t incite immediate action, etc, don’t directly raise conflicts that necessitate limits.

See? When tested, they don’t really care about free speech: weakness of conviction.

it looks like doxxing someone or driving them to suicide on-line should also be considered free speech and protected

If the information is publicly available, then it’s not a violation. If it’s an invasion of privacy or harassment (according to legal standards), then that’s a violation that isn’t protected.

In general, even in the strongest realizations of free speech, expression that directly harms (rather than merely offends) isn’t protected.

Or, get this, free speech means real free speech, no bitchass compromises.

A lefty with conviction & integrity would defend free, unadulterated speech no matter how distasteful, & especially if it is distasteful. A principle demands no less.

Same goes with justice & the rule of law. We would uphold & defend principles of a legal system to protect the least among us, so we can protect ourselves. Otherwise, we can’t reasonably expect those principles to protect us when we need them.

That’s how principles work.

Queer climate deserves better than a coverup like this.

Compelling search engines to deindex results, age verification, chat monitoring: stay golden, EU.

Then explain comments we can find right here or common sentiments you can find at lemmy for restricting hate speech (rejecting they’re part of the same coin). Messaging from the left opposing or skeptical of free speech

• check the comments
• comment skeptical anyone believes in free speech.

I didn’t make this up.

Free speech is dead easy & at one time a lefty cause, then a new generation of fuckwits lost their way to devalue it.

Mastercard: “Sex with children is illegal. Get rid of those games.”

Games depicting it aren’t, which would be easy enough to state. Cool mental theater, though.

Gee, I wonder who people are going to believe.

Do other payment processors exist? Why is this hard for you?

From the article

So this seems like Mastercard are basically saying “it’s not us”.

According to lefties, free speech is only a weapon for conservatives, so they won’t care.

Am I the only one reading n—ers as nooners?

I don’t know, man: AI assistants can put out some really stupid code, and whoever wants shit to “just work” doesn’t care how.

If the developers work in a team, those emails may end up going to whomever holds the company credit card who doesn’t necessarily understand/know/care.

Albert Einstein

Misread that as Albert Epstein, got me thinking. 🤔