this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2024
373 points (93.5% liked)

World News

38506 readers
2693 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
  • In short: Transgender woman Roxanne Tickle is suing social media platform Giggle for Girls after she was excluded from the women-only app.
  • She is alleging unlawful discrimination on the basis of gender identity while the app's founder has denied she is a woman.
  • What's next? The hearing is expected to run for four days.

A transgender woman who was excluded from a women-only social media app should be awarded damages because the app's founder has persistently denied she is a woman, a Sydney court has heard.

In February 2021, Roxanne Tickle downloaded the Giggle for Girls social networking app, which was marketed as a platform exclusively for women to share experiences and speak freely.

Users needed to provide a selfie, which was assessed by artificial intelligence software to determine if they were a woman or man.

Ms Tickle's photograph was determined to be a woman and she used the app's full features until September that year, when the account became restricted because the AI decision was manually overridden.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -4 points 5 months ago (18 children)

I think she'll lose. Because regardless of the issue, a private company can terminate service at any time, for any reason.

It's also been upheld that a graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples. What this means is, again, a company can pick and choose who to serve.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 5 months ago (4 children)

What I found most interesting about that case is she was arguing that Christianity was homophobic and got the Supreme Court to agree with her.

It was a bit of a floor dropping out from underneath me moment when I figured that out. How many years have I pointed out that being LGBT and a follower of Christ are inconsistent, and if you are LGBT with Christian friends you are their project? No one listens to me. And here one of them goes, spends all this effort and time, and manages to convince the court system that yes being a religious Christian means that you hate gay people.

I doubt I have convinced anyone of this in my entire life, she made it an officially recognized fact. And this event will never be untrue since it did happen! For as long as records exist we will have a record of the moment where the US government agreed with me about what Christianity believes.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (3 children)

What I found most interesting about that case is she was arguing that Christianity was homophobic and got the Supreme Court to agree with her.

Cool, now do the rest of the religions. Is there a religion that isn't either homophobic, transphobic or misogynistic?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)