this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
743 points (95.6% liked)

Technology

62906 readers
4067 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 130 points 1 month ago (16 children)

A tolerant society can not tolerate intolerance.

load more comments (16 replies)
[–] Bgugi 74 points 1 month ago (6 children)

Nobody has a problem censoring hateful and harmful content, so long as they're the ones that get to decide what that means.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago (26 children)

Misinformation and violent rhetoric about minorities is hate. It has no place in society and allowing it achieves nothing expect the proliferation of bigotry.

load more comments (26 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 41 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Advertising is hateful content. Ban the entire marketing industry now please.

[–] Doomsider 19 points 1 month ago

The majority of advertising we see in the US should be banned for sure. It is just thinly veiled psychological fuckery designed to manipulate us. Not cool.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ZILtoid1991 35 points 1 month ago (14 children)

Censorship or not, tolerance is a social contract, and those who want to undo this system must be stopped by any means possible. Content moderation is actually the compromise.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] [email protected] 35 points 1 month ago (11 children)

Lemmy was created because Desaulines(sp?) got "censored" on reddit. Now he famously over-censors his darling instance lemmy.ml.

My point is just that nobody really thinks it should be a free for all. Everyone is human and doesn't want to hear anything that they consider egregious, or in the case of lemmy.ml "against rule 2".

[–] drmoose 20 points 1 month ago (9 children)

.ml is garbage lead by legit garbage people. But, open source means we can take lemmy code made by garbage people and repurpose it for good. Unfortunately it seems like Lemmy image is forever stained by those people and the network will never be adopted by normal people fully.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 month ago

Well, it is censorship.

People just wake up to a realization that some censorship should exist, and it makes many uncomfortable.

Other than that, don't be tolerant of the intolerant, and you'll be fine.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I mean it is censorship. But not all censorship is bad.

[–] A_Random_Idiot 12 points 1 month ago

There will be no protection under the social contract for those who wish to violate it.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 month ago (67 children)

Meta's anti-LGBT rules are closely knit to their ending the fact-checking: It is science denialism and linked to racism and vaccine skepticism.

Homosexuality and gender identity are not considered mental illnesses, Sex is not a binary, and Race is not connected to intelligence.

Bigots never liked science on these three, and now they use political power to impose their narrative.

Meta never moderated such discourse. Nor reddit nor twitter nor youtube. There was no censorship to end here. What this is, it is a free pass to punch down trans and gay people. It is incitement to violence, and Zuckerberg and Musk must go to the gallows for it.

Don't get me started on the toxic harassment these platforms have allowed against African and Carribean reparation activists, how they have destroyed the lives of feminists, and how they have named all Palestinians terrorists.

At this point race realists and gender essentialists have ensured political and technological control of the narrative.

There is no room for debating sealioning trolls on this one. If they don't understand the social dynamics against gender/sex/minorities at this moment, they are no better than brownshirts.

It is permabans and hooks and jabs all the way, for every single weird freak that backs this deranged hateful shit.

load more comments (67 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Yes, but just deleting without comment, as if it never existed, isn't the solution either.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 month ago

I mean it is, but it's also not a bad thing in moderation (heh)

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 month ago

Suddenly they care. One dead CEao and a bunch of whiny scared Billionaires is enough to stop 10 years of hateful content. Interesting lesson right there. Censorship is only good if it protects the rich.

[–] dx1 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Who decides when the content is "hateful"? The perpetrators of genocide characterize themselves as marginalized and their victims as a force seeking to eradicate them. That is the problem with censorship. Those are the people who end up with the control of speech. You end up with an Orwellian inversion of concepts like hateful speech for the exact reason that they can be weaponized for profit and power.

You show me which fascist government is going to censor the fascists living under it. It's a paradox. They will not. They will censor the resistance.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Well it depends on the definition of censor.

If you define censor as, "to suppress or delete as objectionable" (Webster) then it fits just fine.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

If in a work of fiction I have a villain call my hero the n-word to demonstrate that the villain is an unapologetic racist, and I am told that I can't have that because the word is bad in and of itself and that racist behavior cannot be tolerated even in fiction..

That is censorship, even if your goals are noble they are also ignorant, as showing disgusting things in fiction is often done in order to condemn similar behavior in real life.

If you call a black person the n-word in real life, and he stomps your ass.

This isn't censorship, this is comedy.

If one goes onto an online community and calls its members radical insults in an unfriendly clearly non-joking hostile manner. Then the guilty party should be removed from that community,

load more comments
view more: next ›