You are free to spend your "ridiculous amount of money" however you please. If you don't donate most of what you earn to help starving children, maybe doing that and living just above the poverty line is a good place to start, before advocating that others give up their QoL.
Came to the comments to post exactly this. +1 "I got banned but did nothing wrong" rant on the Internet. If OP reads this he should ammend or retract the statement to avoid wasting the time of others.
Thanks for that feedback. I've amended that part as you suggested, both to clarify that I'm not as concerned with losing social media capabilities on G+ as I am with everyone I email or text seeing "NULL" instead of my name now, and also to own the fact that I indulge briefly in exactly such a ban-rant after all.
In the following, I assume either pay-per-impression, or pay-per-click with a limited pool size (ex. 500 views limit per day). In the former I assume the "cost" is monetary, in the latter I assume the "cost" is temporal.
Genuinely curious about this, what if somebody is posting an ad for hiring labourers (brick layers, etc.)? Do they pay the cost by also targeting women? What about targeting ads for hiring beauticians at females? Is that wrong? Should the company pay the cost to also advertise to men in the off-chance that they catch one of the very few male beauticians?
To me it makes sense that advertisers, regardless of what they are advertising (job, product, service, etc.) should be able to target the demographics that they believe will achieve the desired outcome. Obviously this has few exceptions such as targeting cigarettes, alcohol, etc. at minors.
Are there any good arguments against this?
Of note: The subject of this topic seems a bit biased, why not "Facebook is letting job advertisers target specific genders?"
What you are describing is a merged set of other named rights, such as Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Association, etc. The US (as far as I am aware) is the only country in the world with the Right to Free Speech. Free being the keyword here, "unconstrained".
Free Speech doesn't mean having the right to say bad things about the government. It means having the right to say anything you want.
You don't have the right to say anything you want in the US either. Free speech is full of exceptions in US law as well, starting with the most obvious example of "shouting fire in a crowded theater" [1] (though the original decision the phrase refers to had nothing to do with someone shouting "fire"...) In other words: speech that would be likely to incite imminent lawless action.
The U.S. has many exceptions to free speech. Libel, slander, "fighting words" (see Chaplinsky v. N.H.), "imminent lawless action"(Brandenburg v. Ohio), obscenity (Miller v. California), etc. These have all been interpreted in varying ways throughout history, with the general trend being towards more protected speech (compare Brandenburg/"imminent lawless action" to Schenck v. U.S./"clear and present danger"). Additionally, the government can restrict speech further when acting in a special capacity, such as the FCC's regulation of the speech on the airwaves and public schools' regulation of free speech in classrooms.
It's delusional to think that the U.S. has unrestricted free speech, or to think that "free" implies completely "unconstrained".
>Free Speech doesn't mean having the right to say bad things about the government. It means having the right to say anything you want.
This is a strawman. No EU country restricts free speech to speech criticizing the government.
Well, at least in Germany you can say all kinds of negative Things aboiut the government you want as long as you are not personally insulting anybody. In France as well as far as I know. Wether it is part of freedom of Speech or Freedom of Expression, well I'm no constitutional lawyer.
So if you manage to avoid being tortured or killed, then what you did wasn't a sacrifice and wasn't patriotic? Considering the definition of hero goes so far as saving somebody from a burning building and receives minor burns, I think it's rich to say that because that person didn't receive full body 3rd degree burns or die in the fire, that they're not a hero. They risked their life and did their best to avoid or mitigate the damage they caused themselves.
Are you saying that the rescuer who fails to save the person and dies in the fire is more of a hero because they screwed up, or chose to give up and be burned alive? What about the rescuer who saves the person and intentionally runs back into the burning building and dies to gain "hero points"?
Yeah, the case against Assange in Sweden was just to get him to go back so Sweden could extradite him to the US. That is something legitimate to run from. I believe it is foolish to maximise the amount of damage to one's self, for many reasons least of all that it hampers one's ability to achieve their goal.
I haven't followed any links posted in this thread, but some things I see often are: free for non-commercial use, timed commercial use usually in the region of 30 days, or rates based on reads and writes. The last one seems like a winner from what you've described as your situation.
