• Pennomi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I understand it’s important to protect your brand identity but it’s even more sad that a toy company doesn’t understand the value of “just having a little fun”.

    Corporations really seem to exist entirely to suck the joy out of life.

    Edit: Yes, we agree that ACAB, and frankly they shouldn’t publicize enforcement information at all. This was intended to be a general statement on IP law rather than law enforcement.

      • Pennomi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        The reason the police department is wrong is not because they’re using LEGO (trademark infringement), it’s wrong because criminals shouldn’t be reduced to “engaging social media content”.

  • Wilshire@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    This is dystopian.

    “We are currently exploring other methods to continue publishing our content in a way that is engaging and interesting to our followers.”

  • Empricorn@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Gross. Can we not link Fox “News” stories, please? If you have to reference them, use an archive… They have been and continue to be an active opponent of Democracy. That’s not an exaggeration. They also argued in court that no reasonable *person would believe their coverage, so… free pass?

    • muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Can we not just ban news orgs cos they have beleifs u dont like. For discussion to take place u need a varied source of opinions and points of view.

      • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Don’t “both sides” this as a dispute about political minutiae. Fox has successfully argued, in court and under oath, that no reasonable person should take them seriously. They’ve stated on their own recognizance that they are not, in fact, a news organization. Based on that alone, their use in matters of fact is extremely suspect.

        And that’s before you even get to the fact (not opinion or belief) that some of their most reasonable pundits actively advocate for the suspension of rule of law in the case of the former president. They don’t have “beliefs I don’t like,” they have formal positions that are fundamentally opposed to what it means to be a news organization in the United States.

        The fact that two news organizations cater to people on opposite sides of the political divide does not necessarily mean that the truth is “somewhere in the middle.” If someone refers to the sky as “azure” and their opponent says that it’s actually “powder blue,” that’s one thing; reality may well be within that discussion set. But if someone says that the sky is azure, and their opponent says that it’s orange, the truth is not that the sky is actually magenta.

        And the fact that an opinion or point of view is expressed does not mean that it needs to be entertained for the sake of valid debate. Just because a mentally ill person is shouting about his belief that all redheads are demons who should be forcibly imprisoned doesn’t mean you need to include him in your decision about what to have for lunch.

        The way that people of ill will and bad faith get their arguments heard is by presenting them as reasonably equivalent to the other arguments being made. You are under no obligation to entertain their nonsense.

          • ilinamorato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Actually it is. The social contract with news organizations is that, as long as they report facts and analysis in as neutral and factual a manner as they are able, they can continue to report those facts and analysis. The social contract with pundits is that, as long as they adhere to at least the broadest set of shared values common to the majority of Americans and disagree in good faith when they do not adhere to those shared values, they can continue to share their editorial opinions.

            Fox has violated both of those contracts by their own admission, so we are no longer bound by those contracts to welcome their content as news or analysis in public spaces, or to allow their content as news or analysis in spaces we control.

            tl;dr: they have decided to stop presenting news, which means that we must no longer treat their content as news.