p3x.deIt’s not censorship to stop hateful online content, insists UN rights chief
submitted by
Sunshine (she/her)@lemmy.ca
Sunshine (she/her)@lemmy.ca
news.un.org/en/story/2025/01/1158886
Advertising is hateful content. Ban the entire marketing industry now please.
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.
Agreed. Let everyone be free to decide. I don't want something shoved to my face 24x7, its inorganic and harmful.
Yes, but just deleting without comment, as if it never existed, isn't the solution either.
Are you saying it should be required by law to have a comment regarding removal of content?
Law is per country, web is international, i don't think that's gonna work.
Nobody has a problem censoring hateful and harmful content, so long as they're the ones that get to decide what that means.
Nobody has a problem with getting a malignant tumor removed, so long as they're the ones who decide whether they believe the diagnosis or not.
I have a problem with idea of gov sayimg what goes. Whatever gov. If it's your site - whatever goes, goes. You set the rules. Sheesh.
But I admit I am nos so sure when it comes to giants like FB or X. If they were like that from the get go, sure, but sudden switch is iffy as hell.
"iffy" isn't the same as "illegal." They can change their policies whenever they want, provided that doesn't violate any contracts, express or implied, with their customers. If they do violate a contract, they need to make fair restitution as per whatever the enforceable terms of the agreement are.
Contracts are only meaningful between parties with more or less equal power. When the power asymmetry is extreme, contracts are just a form of coercion. Consider the case of binding arbitration clauses.
I 100% agree, and there's a very good chance those binding arbitration agreements will be thrown out by a court. In law, there's a concept of equal compensation, and if a contract heavily favors one party over another, it is treated as null and void.
For example, at my last job, I pissed off my boss for standing up for myself, but my boss knew I was indespensible, so he transitioned me to a full remote contractor from a salary position. My job was the same, and I was expected to join regular team meetings, but I no longer had my benefits. Anyway, when COVID happened, they "eliminated my position" (probably cost cutting), so I applied for unemployment. It's not available for contract employees, but they said it would be if I was a de-facto employee (I think that's the right term). They investigated, my employer fought it, and they determined that I was, in fact, a de-facto employee because of how I and they saw the agreement. In other words, our contract was voided because it was one-sided and only benefitted the company, and they were forced to backpay my unemployment.
That said, many people don't realize that and are "chilled" (pretty sure that's the legal term) from taking action about it.
I believe we should change contract law to actively push back on this. Contracts should be as simple as possible, understandable by someone with an 8th grade education, and only include terms necessary to provide the service. I shouldn't have to scroll through 30 pages of technical jargon to find out if my rights are being violated, that's unreasonable and should invalidate the entire contract.
Misinformation and violent rhetoric about minorities is hate. It has no place in society and allowing it achieves nothing expect the proliferation of bigotry.
Sure, but should it be illegal? Unless it's causing direct harm, I think the answer is no, regardless of how disgusting and hurtful it is.
For example, I can stand on the corner with a sign saying something disgusting like, "all Jews must die" or "all GOP members must die," and as long as it's not seen as an actual, credible threat, it's not and shouldn't be illegal. Should we, as a society, tolerate it? No, I fully expect people to confront me about it, I expect to lose friends, and I also expect businesses to choose to not serve me due to my speech. However, I also don't think there should be any legal opposition.
The same is true for platforms, they should absolutely be allowed to tolerate or moderate speech however they choose. That's their right as the platform owner, and it's a violation of free speech to restrict that right. However, people also have the right to leave platforms they disagree with, other entities have the right to not boost that content, etc. That's how free speech works, you have the freedom to say whatever you want, and others have the right to ignore you and not let you onto their platforms.
Okay, but are Jewish people supposed to just accept that you're walking around calling for the mass murder of their communities?
Weimar Germany was a society that was governed on this principle of a "marketplace of ideas" where "unacceptable evil beliefs will naturally be rejected", so is the modern united states. You can see two pretty clear examples of how this does not work and just allows fascists to promote their view points.
Say in you're example you're not just some guy on the street corner. Say you're a media executive. Say you're a politician. Say you're a billionaire. Is it still permissible? Say you make a new political party called the "kill all the jews" party, and you make friends with all the major media executives to promote your views non-stop all day every day on the air. Is it still permissible? Say you buy out social media websites, and make it against the TOS for those websites to say anything denouncing of the "kill all the jews" party. Then you flood those websites with indoctrination material and fabricated news stories. Is it still permissible?
Hate speech can and should be faced with legal prosecution. You should face legal repercussions for calling for all Jewish people to be murdered. Freedom of speech should not protect violent bigotry. The goal of government should be to provide the greatest quality of life for all. That is incompatible with allowing people to spread violent hate speech and indotrinate others into violent bigotry. This mistake has been made time and again. Fascists are the ones who fight the absolute hardest for "freedom to say nazi shit". Because of course they want it to be legal for them to do that, they're nazis. Protecting them from legal consequences for being Nazis literally only benefits Nazis.
And it's not just calling for mass murder, but providing the framework to organize it. There's a point where a threat becomes specific and actionable, and at that point, it's not protected speech any more, it's incitement. the problem is that the courts have so far failed to recognize that the technique of stochastic terrorism is actionable, just as a more traditional threat is.
Yep, it's going to be cold comfort for the absolutists when they're being mass-murdered. This is not genteel debate we're talking about, it's crimes against humanity, and I'm quite willing to sacrifice a few absolutist principles to prevent even more of such crimes being committed.
I’m looking forward to whenever someone decides that your beliefs are “hate speech” and suddenly you’ll be the one supporting free speech.
"Free speech" is a morally neutral thing. Most leftists don't go on about "free speech" because it's not a value we hold. We value tolerance of people of different races, genders, sexualities, and so on. The issue is not speech in general -- it's the content of speech that matters. "Free speech" sidesteps the issue of what is actually being said.
Fascism isn't the only form of authoritarianism, and authoritarianism in general wants to control speech. If you can frame your opponents' speech as "hate speech," you can use the law to silence them, even if their speech has no chance of actually causing any harm. If becomes a political tool to maintain power.
The examples I gave are fairly extreme and most would consider them hate speech, but as soon as we allow silencing people over hate speech, we open the door to abuse for political purposes. The charges don't even need to stick, you just need to tie someone up in the courts so they can't properly campaign.
Look at less free countries like Venezuela or Russia, they go after speech first (e.g. journalists). That alone should give you serious pause when you hear any attempt to regulate speech.
We don't have to, there's no rule saying either we have Nazis or no one can say anything. I don't agree that "saying nazi stuff" is nebulous enough that it could be construed to mean "saying not nazi stuff".
I also don't feel you adequately responded to my pointing out that protecting the rights of Nazis to be Nazis only benefits Nazis at the expense of literally everyone else and allowing Nazis to make political parties and manipulate society.
Your society has fundamentally failed to protect the rights of its citizens if Nazis can exist within it. They should face legal action for their views.
Why is this just about “minorities” and what is a “minority”? Who is going to define this definition? Why is this not also for hate of any kind such as calls for violence to “non-minorities”?
the law shouldn't dictate this because that would require rigid definitions of misinformation and minorities. are Nazis minorities? What about Israelis? Or Palestinians?
is spreading a rumor misinformation? What if it is later found out to be true?
Fascist speech is not hard to point out. Advocating for the removal of the human rights of minority groups should result in legal punishment. Advocating for violence against minorities should result in legal punishment.
No one is born a Nazi. You should not be able to exist in society as a Nazi. You should face legal action for being a Nazi. We hung people at Nuremberg over this. We have already long since had established definitions of what inciting genocide is, of what spreading fascism is.
Nobody is born a Muslim either, yet pointing out the hatefulness of Islam is considered racism.
What is tiring about this conversation is that you have to balance real historically documented dangers of tolerating fascists, versus the theoretical dangers of whatever some internet person thinks might happen in an imaginary future.
I mean, it's a tough call, right? "Regulating food sounds nice in theory but what if it gives some future government the power to ban pizza haha gotcha".
the main problem I have with the government doing this is that they would be the ones to define who the minoritys are. If I remember correctly the US consider veterans to be a protected class, what if a government decided to extend minority status to those that themselves (as part of their "culture") codified intolerance to existing protected minorities (such as certain religions with respect to homosexuality)?
I mean I'm not advocating for that though. I don't think it's impossible to restrict specifically fascist rhetoric. I don't think it's impossible to make it illegal to advocate for genocide of racial and gender minorities.
A tolerant society can not tolerate intolerance.
And society != government.
The law should tolerate intolerance, outside of credible threats of violance/restrictions of others' rights. However, society shouldn't tolerate intolerance, meaning we should shut down intolerance in all privately controlled spaces, and confront intolerance in all public spaces.
This is extremely wrong. The government is most definitely our society. Trying to pretend the government is not made up of us is ridiculous and reeks of othering.
I have read several of your posts and they all rely on government bad private sector good methodology. It reminds me of good old fashioned anti-government propaganda pushed by corpo bootlickers.
The government is and always will be a tool of society. I can certainly appreciate your apprehension with our current government in the US. I also appreciate your diligence in defining the difference between public and private spaces.
Oh, the incoming US government is made up of us? There is no "us" that includes both me and those thieving, murderous, lying pieces of shit.
And as the man said, if my thought-dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine.
Yup it is, you must understand the incoming administration is just a fraction of the actual government.
I totally agree with you that Aotus and his handlers along with a lot of our representatives are pieces of shit. We definitely need to vote them out. Hopefully we will still be able to when it is all said and done.
Really though we need some serious reforms to restore our confidence.
That's absolutely not true. To use a sports analogy (any sport), the government is the referees, and society is the culture around the game (cheers, rituals, etc). If nobody shows up to the stadium, the refs have nothing to referee, yet society carries on.
We try to set up rules that match the values we hold (i.e. no dangerous tackles), but if we try to rig the game in our favor, the other team will use those same rules against us. If we give the referees too much leeway in interpreting the rules, we open ourselves up to bribery and unfair game calling.
As you rightly said, government is a tool of society, but it's also a dangerous tool. The same tool can guarantee equal protection under the law like the civil rights movement in the US, or it can guarantee unequal protection like in Nazi Germany. The difference comes down to what powers we let the government have.
You can throw "fascists" (general term for the right wing these days it seems) in there as well. Once you give the government power to regulate speech, it becomes very easy to abuse. If you can control the narrative, you can hold on to power.
While I do most closely align with libertarians than either major party (who are stereotypically pro-private sector), I don't think this is a good summary. I think government is a dangerous tool and we should be very careful in using it to solve problems. However, I also think large corporations are also dangerous, and we should have tools to keep them in check. For example:
We absolutely need checks on both the private and public sectors, the first to prevent any one individual or group from having an outsized influence, and the second to prevent weaponization of the state's monopoly on force. I believe government should be decentralized, but powerful in the limited roles it has.
If they'd come for the Nazis first, the remainder of that over-repeated list would not matter.
I know people who have ran for office and been successful on the city/county level. They made a difference in our communities. The people in government are not any different than you or I.
On a local level there is not even a doubt that we have a lot of control. I have "lobbied" local, state level, and federal level and I can tell you we have less control over the federal side. This does not mean we have no control though.
We are literally the government. The government has the power to regulate speech and exercises it's authority regularly. The judicial branch is well known for regulating free speech in the public sector. We have a lot of laws for things like broadcasting or radio in the private sector.
Unfortunately our government never really caught up with the Internet age quite yet. The regulations they have wrote heavily favor corporate interests. Concepts like Net Neutrality were politicized instead of embraced. We still lack basic privacy protections. We gave hundreds of billions of dollars to telecom to provide fiber throughout the country and they squandered it.
We are forced to use shitty private companies for communication. We have to go through third parties for all our banking needs. Meanwhile these companies lie, cheat, and decieves us. Truly a libertarian hellscape where private interests control everything.
The very reason you dislike the government is the very reason we are here today. Our government is so ineffective it has basically given into private interests. This is particularly noticeable in the Tech sector.
I think it is past time to write a new constitution that actually works for everyone. We need to shed the "for the rich by the rich" part of our government and basically grow up. Governing should be highly regulated and designed to resist corruption.
Yup, and I've thought of challenging my state rep because he always runs unopposed. I honestly don't have time for the job, but my rep is such an idiot that maybe it's worth risking the very remote chance that I'll win. I doubt I'd get >20%, and that's including all the protest and pity votes in my district.
It's also not at all what it says on the tin.
Ideally, something like that wouldn't be necessary at all because nobody owns the internet. Yet for some reason everyone wants to regulate it. If I pay for service, I should get the advertised speed, regardless of what I'm accessing. If someone like Netflix wants to host a cache at my ISP, go for it, but it should only be hit if my DNS resolves to that cache (and I control my DNS).
Yet ISPs, governments, and big tech companies all think they own it. Just back off.
More like a nightmare for libertarians. Everywhere I look there's cronyism, and that's distinctly anti-libertarian. Banks get bailed out when they get caught with their hand in the cookie jar instead of the execs serving jail time. ISPs violate their contracts and nobody holds them to task.
I think the opposite is true. Our government is so effective that special interests rarely need to lobby, because our reps sell us out on their own. If you want to see who representatives are loyal to, look no further than their campaign contributions.
The problem is that we keep expecting government to solve our problems without ensuring that they're actually loyal to us, the people. And why should they? It's not like we're going to vote them out next time, we'll keep voting with our tribe because maybe this time they'll listen (they won't).
No, for government to actually be worth trusting, we need massive reforms to realign the federal government with the interests of the people. State governments are often better (esp in smaller states) because there's less to get from buying those reps, though that's not exactly true in my area (Utah, where the predominant church largely calls the shots on important legislation). Some options:
In general, get money out of politics as much as possible, and attack the two party duopoly. That probably won't fix it, but it's a start.
Maybe. I'm not sure what I'd change that couldn't be fixed with an amendment or two though, and that's likely way easier than replacing the Constitution (which I largely like).
Sure, but there's an lot of people classifying disagreement as hatred and using that to stamp out the discourse we need to have as a society.
Take positive discrimination. Some see it as corrective action for historical injustices. Some see it as newspeak it for just another form of discrimination and two wrongs don't make a right. There's a societal discourse that needs to happen there.
Nobody is preaching hatred, but I expect I'll get shit for even suggesting there's a ethical argument against DEI.
It would help if you re-thought your argument from the perspective of a person with the intelligence to understand the difference between *discourse* and intolerant hate speech. Yes. We are discussing hatred.
No, don’t drag DEI into this. There is no equivalency in this discussion. It just shows your biases to even remotely associate it.
You are proving the parent's point and you don't even realize it.
It is intolerant hate speech targeted at people who are specifically targeted by racist, genderist, ableist, and sexist double standards, going against the very pillars of democracy and modern science, to serve a religious and corporatist agenda. What was your point, mfer?
You're talking about equality vs equity. DEI is equitable.
DEI, when applied in the real life, usually means if there's two people with similar enough skillsets, one hires the more disadvataged one. Some programs use a scoring system, where being marginalized grants you extra scores on top of what you get on the tests, sure, but it's usually pretty low (10-20 max for a 450+ max score system). It also involves training for the HR, so their prejudices can be overwritten with actual fact.
However, when I first heard about DEI in 2012 (!), it was that people told me I could get fired for being white just so the workplace can expand its "diversity", while the guy telling me its existence told me how can I help Fidesz to win the next elections, and that I should become a hardcore conservative ASAP because I would grow out of leftism.
Deleted by moderator
Running a company with people who are all exactly the same is such a stupid idea that it doesn't even merit a discussion. How are you going to understand your market, your demographics, cultural changes? Dumbest shit I've heard in awhile.
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.
I mean it is, but it's also not a bad thing in moderation (heh)
Some might argue that calling what happens in Gaza a genocide might be hate speach against Israel, and it should be censored. So who decides what is "hate" and what is not?
Paxton Wins Major Case Defending Texas’s Anti-Boycott-of-Israel Law
In your example, there is clear, observable evidence of genocide occurring. They are killing civilians and demolishing critical civilian infrastructure. So, saying Israel is committing genocide has a certain amount of truth/accuracy in it, and the intent isn't to smear Israel, it's to point out what they are actively doing, while the world is receiving constant updates. In other words, there is objective evidence behind the claims.
Hate speech is the opposite. It has no objective evidence behind it, and the intent is to make specific people/groups look a certain way. We can typically infer the intent of hate speech by the words they choose to use, and the way they frame their "argument". We employ critical thinking to do this. This process can also be peer reviewed for further accuracy.
I've seen many denying the evidence which seems so obvious to you. Even my government is denying it.
Who decides about objectivity?
In principle, you don't need anyone to decide. The facts speak for themselves.
In practice, people get the overwhelming majority of their information third-hand. So the people who decide on objective reality are the people who manage the media infrastructure that provides information of the outside world to their audience.
As audiences become more fractured and information streams more selective (particularly in political media), the different viewpoints provided by various news outlets and propaganda firms can create the illusion of multiple competing objective realities.
But lying and denial and selective reporting don't change reality. Eventually, the reporting begins to produce contradictions - images and statements that don't line up with one another, because they are so busy trying to reframe a momentary narrative or shape a shifting popular opinion. That dissonance is a big warning sign of an illusion at play.
We have footage of them bombing schools, hospitals, shooting up aid convoys... What is there to deny?..
Schools, hospitals, and aid convoys that are hijacked and used by Hamas for conducting military operations, which makes them valid military targets under international law.
Except, in all cases, there were a lot of dead doctors, teachers, and children. The UN investigated each instance and found war crimes. The aid convoys were with registered international aid organizations and, upon investigation, they were found to be legitimate, had no weapons, we have footage of the attacks happening, they were not entering legitimate Israeli territory, and Israel has not shared any evidence of hamas operating out of these locations or via aid convoys.
If I take the time to back this up with sources, would you be receptive to the information? Don't want to waste my time if you're not willing to assess evidence that disproves your currently held beliefs.
The "human shields" rhetoric is traditionally used as a reason why you *can't* target a militant, not a reason why you *can* kill a civilian.
Israel has inverted the narrative, both by asserting that a dozen dead Palestinians are justified if one Hamas militant is killed, and by asserting that anyone in proximity to a Hamas militant is a collaborator.
The end result is a free-fire zone, wherein nobody an Israeli bomb or hit squad targets is exempt from the status of "military target". This is a legal claim that Israel makes independent of international legal courts, and has resulted in the Israeli government being repeatedly sanctioned and threatened with prosecution by those same courts.
So no, they are not
Just the contrary. The IDF is implicated in war crimes by engaging in these rampant and lawless slaughters.
Those arguing objective facts when the point is clear tend to argue from a position of bad faith, and should be ignored. Hence the critical thinking.
Look at what those who are denying genocide in this example have to gain from such a claim. If it's much, those individuals have a vested interest in denying the truth and as such, should no longer be allowed a seat at the table.
There is plenty across history that defines a genocide. Leaders arguing there aren't exact parallels this time around, makes them despot. Complicit is too kind a word.
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.
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.
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".
.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.
Lemmy is fine. It will blow up in the next 2-5, guaranteed. We will also learn new ways disinformation techniques will evolve in that time frame to adjust.
Big doubt. People will flock to something like BlueSky before they flock to Lemmy.
Bigger doubt.
Unless the government outlaws federating/VPNs and forces ISPs to block instances.
We had the chance in the last five elections to secure net neutrality. What can I say, people are fucking stupid.
People don’t even understand what those two words even mean. The chronically stupid will stay stupid. My own mother is a prime example of this. Her brain is warped by whatever Fox News, Facebook, and health guru podcasts she listens to tell her how to think and feel. The majority in this country are just like her.
Right, but they gave everyone their own platform which can compete with .ml in the same space
Social media probably shouldn't, but the law should allow for a free for all. I personally think we should be closer to "free for all" than "completely locked down," but everyone has their preferred balance.
The creator of Lemmy is just one example. They remove a lot of content that *isn't* hateful, just against their political ideology. I used that as an example of a private social media website which does a lot of censoring, even though the creators are sort of, somehow, outwardly against censoring? So everyone is human is my point.
The article in question is about hate speech, not political dissent. Hate speech is pretty widely moderated away on Lemmy, and I think a majority of people here are cool with that. Some here are arguing semantics which is fair. Censoring is censoring which is the definition of censoring. I'm in the camp that if someone online is threatening another person or group of people, that should be hidden/removed.
Another perspective on the Lemmy situation is that, for example, I can sincerely say I believe free speech has merits while creating a book club where political discussion isn't allowed. Some would call that censorship, but restricting a certain community doesn't mean I approve of unconditional societal censorship. "Censorship", like many abstract concepts in the liberalist worldview, doesn't make sense to think of as a universal value, but rather in contexts, like you pointed out with hate speech removal being in line with the beliefs of most people on the main Lemmy instances.
There are some concepts, for example, that I think are fine to discuss in an academic situation but should be censored in public spaces, especially when it comes to explicitly genocidal ideologies like Nazism, or bigoted hate speech.
It's also by a politician with political power.
Do you know what the difference is between political dissent and hate speech? A clever application of the law, or a particularly persuasive lawyer. The law should be limited to prosecuting credible threats of violence or other speech intending to cause direct harm (e.g. repeated harassment, shouting "fire" in a crowded room, etc).
Overbearing *private* moderation is absolutely fine, since people can take their speech to another platform or create their own. *Laws* controlling speech is another matter entirely.
Lemmy devs are free to moderate their instances however they see fit, and I'm free to not engage with their instance.
It sounds like we agree, but I'm much less lawerly due to my lack of experience in that field.
No worries, I don't have any direct experience either, just a strong interest.
As a kid, I wanted to be a lawyer, but I was quite introverted so litigation wasn't appealing, so I decided to go into software patent law (I loved computers). While doing a CS undergrad, I learned how terrible software patents are, so I stuck to software dev.
I still really like the law, but now I'm more interested as a citizen knowing my rights instead of looking to prosecute the law.
.ml doesn't do parma bans generally speaking....
While I still think their over zealous daddy sheepooh and pootin speech policing is rather clown, their mod style is more reasonable vis-a-vis.World mods who are just same as reddit lol
Poor reading comprehension and regime narrative weaving...
Never forget how they handled Saint Luigi
Don't made judgements about everybody based on one guy. I'm on an instance that doesn't defederate lemmygrad or lemmy.ml, so I commonly see utterly insane tankie takes in popular, and of course also in various comments - and yet I don't want those people to not have a platform. Because I trust just about noone to decide whether *my* opinions should be censored, and if that means also not censoring the opinions of people who I think are very wrong, I'm willing to take that trade.
There's a big difference between utterly insane tankie takes and hateful content.
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.
Just to put some perspective over here:
Pretty much the exact same thing in pretty much the exact words is being said on the other (right wing) side of things. Its just the things being tolerated are different
I honestly think that the bigger issue here isn't so much tolerance but certain parties that keep pointing out relatively small things to the common people (mostly on the right side of the political spectrum) and go "ooohhg my God can you believe these evil fuckers and they will do that to children too and won't anyone think of the children". Basically I'm talking trump, musk, Fox news, that sort of shit.
I've long held the believe that Trump did untold damage and harm to millions, but the biggest harm he has done is the division he's sown. There has always been a rather steep divide in the US, but that divide has grown into a fucking ocean between the two sides.
I think most people in the US, when receiving the actual proper facts, would really not think and feel that different. Nobody would rage against universal healthcare, why would they? You only do that when you're misinformed.
Not trying to excuse anyone, not trying to say that most trump supporters aren't insufferable assholes, but the vast majority of them wouldn't be as bad had they have access to actual news sources, had they not been constantly lied to.
Now with what you said, please understand that there are loads of highly armed militia groups out there in the US that would love to go into detail of that "any means necessary". Were this to happen, you're basically talking civil war. once that happens, everyone loses, you will too.
I think that the only way to repair this divide is to keep building bridges, keep talking, keep listening, because once it gets too far, then that's it. One only has to look at Yugoslavia as an example of what happens when neighbor starts massacring neighbors. There is no winning for anyone.
The biggest issue is, those who divide us make those people untrusting of said bridges.
Tolerance is tolerance and it can break any time. You just keep tolerating until you can't anymore, as simple as that. Its artificial.
That depends on who's doing the moderation. If it's a government entity, that's censorship, and the only time I'm willing to accept it is if it's somehow actively harmful (i.e. terrorist plots and whatnot). If it's merely disgusting, that's for private entities to work out, and private entities absolutely have the right to moderate content they host however they choose.
Why is a private entity significantly different from a government entity? If a coalition of private entities (say, facebook, twitter, youtube, ... ) controls most of the commons, they have the power to dictate everything beyond the fringes. We can already see this kind of collusion in mass media to the extent that it's labeled a propaganda model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model
I just don't think the private/gov dichotomy is enough to decide when censorship and moderation is valid.
It's because of the power imbalance. If a private entity decides LGBT content is inappropriate for kids, you can find something on the fringe because someone will fill that gap. If a government makes the same decision, they can prosecute any service that doesn't follow the law, which chills smaller services from offering it.
On the flipside, if a large tech company does it, it affects nearly everyone on the planet, whereas if a government does it, it should only impact people in that country. However, with larger countries, impacts often bleed into other countries (e.g. I see EU cookie banners in the US).
Likewise, it's less likely for a government to rescind a bad law, whereas a bad policy can be easily reversed if it hurts profits.
The government is supposed to be representing voters' best interests and have a monopoly on force to enforce rules. We can't trust anyone to decide for us what speech we can listen to. A government should have no say on restricting speech (sadly, even if that speech does cause harm to people in our LGBT family).
A business should not have power comparable to a government. You probably have to interact with the government to some degree, you shouldn't have to interact with a specific business at all.
These points both make sense given ideal conditions. People and businesses should have liberty over themselves, with the government serving as a neutral foundation representing the interest of voters.
Unfortunately, these ideal conditions don't exist. The government isn't neutral, but that's not because of themselves or a democratic decision, but because businesses have more power to influence politics than you and me. Look at the major shareholders of mass media and social media, look at fundraisers for political parties, look at the laws made to bias the system. The government is evidently not a neutral foundation or a representative of the common people, but a *dictatorship of the owning class* (I'm using the term *dictatorship* not to imply one person ruling, but rather, that business owners as a class dictate the actions of politicians and therefore the government). And while it's easy to consider this a crony capitalism or corporatocracy, it's ultimately just capitalism itself taking its logical course, as business owners generally have a common class interest and the government cannot work without the complicity of business owners. We see this consistently in capitalist states, all the way back to the first ones. It's not a fluke, it's the power of capital.
We also see the trend of monopolization emerge - more money makes more money, more resources makes more resources, so small businesses are generally muscled out or incorporated into larger companies unless the government can force them to stop. So while you technically don't have to interact with a specific business at all, there are many industries where you are effectively forced to interact with a small collection of the most powerful businesses or even a duopoly, even more so if you don't have enough money to be picky.
So, while I agree, the government *is supposed* to be representing voters' best interests, and business *should not* have power comparable to governance, they don't represent us and businesses do govern, and history shows this won't be changed through the electoral system they control. It has only changed when the worker class, as opposed to the businesses, has become the class directing the government.
Oh, like the dissemination of propaganda originating from the troll farms of hostile powers? Good idea.
Harmful meaning things like harassment (defined as continued and targeted use of speech intended to harass an individual) or credible threats of violence (i.e. a threat to kill a specific individual, attack an area, etc).
Harmful doesn't mean "ideas I don't like."
We don’t have a social contract. It’s everyone for themselves.
Delete the data on my device and let me in control of the sliders and ban words. Make the defaults reasonnable to stop hate. This would not be censorship anymore, just deamplification and no one is a martyr now.
Simple as. Why censor when you can just let the users have the power to see what they want to see? In voyager I have all of the annoying headline keywords filtered. Makes browsing the fediverse much more pleasant.
The reason to say not but will not admit. This strips the owner class for the power to shape discourse and control the means of communication. This dynamic also exists on open source communication platforms such as lemmy and mastodon.
Imagine if we could simply subscribe to the content filters of fellow users. If I could just click your username, see you filter keyword list and click to add to mine the ones I like or subscribe to your named filters and their future changes.
I mean it is censorship. But not all censorship is bad.
There will be no protection under the social contract for those who wish to violate it.
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.
We've come to decide 'hate content' on ideological basis that the question of 'who decides' arises. If people could be more realistic than idealistic, that would've never been the issue. In this situation, what's in your head becomes more important than what you really need because something didn't go your way.
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,
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.
Deleted by moderator
You really don't have a clue what trans people are do you? The reason some of us require access to hormone replacement and surgical healthcare is specifically because of the way that our bodies are. Accepting trans people is not in any way illogical or unscientific. It is an acknowledgment that gender is not a simple binary option. We would expect gender to exist identically across the entire world if that were the case. It doesn't. Western imperialists have a long history of enforcing a binary patriarchal view of gender onto conquered peoples. And people have always resisted that too, non-binary gender and trans gender people have always existed under differing names throughout human history.
Man and Woman are not and never have been determined by biology. When you choose what pronoun to use for a stranger, you do not need to first look at their blood tests or their genitals. If you gender a stranger wrong, and they correct you you generally just apologize and move on. When I was a young child and had long hair people frequently referred to me as a girl. It was never an issue when they would be corrected on that. They didn't need to see my blood tests or my genitals to believe me when I corrected them. Because that's not how gender works, it is not and never has been a product of biology. It is associated with different bodies, but that is not its basis.
Trans people are not denying reality, rather we are acknowledging it and saying people should have the choice of what gender is assigned to them. That instead of assigning it everyone should be free to state their own gender. That this process is not disruptive or damaging to any aspect of society (and it isn't, there has never been one single legitimate peer-reviwed non-discredited study that showed that it is).
You might love having a cock and a flat chest and being a man but I absolutely hated it! It was the driving force behind multiple suicide attempts throughout my adolescence and early adulthood. I've been on hormones for a decade and it has made me a million times happier, I got reassignment surgery 2 years ago and I have never been a healthier person and never felt as good about my own body. It has had a very provably fantastic effect on my well-being. It is entirely scientific.
Here I am, going to get downvoted into oblivion, but you already speak about the topic so I want to ask.
Trans people have the cure for their condition - that being surgery. Why shouldn't being trans (before actually transitioning!) considered being ill?
Sorry if I come as rude but in today's hellscape there's really no way to ask that without sounding like a douche.
First, surgery is not sth every trans person seeks, nor the first thing that they seek.
Equating trans with surgery shows that you know next to nothing about the topic.
Again, if you want to educate yourself here
Being trans is a reality not a condition. Like (some) veterans have PTSD, that does not mean being a veteran is mentally ill.
World Health Organization lists gender incongruence under "conditions related to reproductive health" not mental conditions. American Psychiatric Organization has "gender dysphoria" under mental conditions, but clearly states this is to get access to care, being trans in itself is not a mental condition.
Finally, the fact that there is a "cure", does not mean there must necessarily be an illness, for example abortions are health care for unwanted pregnancy this does not mean pregnancy is an illness.
gender dysmorphia is the illness, and transitioning is the cure.
Hi LadyAutumn, thank you for writing this up. I’m really glad you’re here. Just wanted to say that since a sad troll is trying to make it seem like we’re not. But that guy doesn’t speak for me, and I’m so happy your transition has been healthy and life-affirming. Best wishes :)
Deleted by moderator
Do you need to see proof that someone is, has been, or can become pregnant before you can agree they are a girl or woman?
Deleted by moderator
you're missing the point of being transgender.
the goal is not to claim that they were born a different gender. that would be delusional, and transgender people can be totally rational.
the point is simply to live as their preferred gender, and ideally be accepted as such.
when they live as their preferred gender, they are able to feel happy and content, just like everyone else. it's not that difficult to consider how miserable we would feel if people misgendered us. it's a common insult.
treating everyone as the gender they prefer is a simple act of kindness. you can choose to be an asshole about it, but you're not standing up for the truth, you're just choosing to be an asshole.
Deleted by author
I live on my own and support myself and my family with a full-time job in technology.
And yeah, people like you are very predictable in your arguments. Like how you didn't even argue against anything I said. Because you can't, there is no actual counterargument except to deny everything and assert God. Took me all of 10 minutes to type my response. This concerns my rights and freedoms, the rights and freedoms of my community, and the rights and freedoms of vulnerable people like trans youth and disabled trans people. I will never accept an attack on their rights.
I don't live in the US, so I'll have to ask 9 days until what exactly? Go off buddy you're so cool spreading hate speech about minorities on the internet. Your ideological allies got shot by allied soldiers landing on the beaches of Normandy in June of 1944. That's who the group of people with views and strategies most closely aligned with your own are. You should think a bit about what that says about you.
Deleted by moderator
Deleted by moderator
In what way do trans people hurt you?
But calling people moronic before having a conversation does seem mean. Matter of fact a trans person just did.
We see how cool headed are men when pay-gap is brought up.
Fucking cry-babies, they call everyone a snowflake and want to concern troll endlessly, but the moment sexism and racism comes up in a discussion they lose their shit.
Imagine when a trans person is perpetually punched down by the whole of society and still have to be nice because of strict tone policing.
To me, a trans person has every right to call you a moron when if you tried to debate their existence and rights, especially now that blatant transphobia is legitimized and normalized.
Did you just assume my gender?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
Never said they did
You people bring up those arguments for years and years. Having a gender identity that mismatches your genitals is not a delusion. This is a hundreds or so medical organizations opinion. If you are willing to educate yourself, rather than being an ignorant piece of shit. This has been the case for YEARS, at this point if you have not gotten the message, you don't want to be educated.
That link leads to no where
Switch invidious backend from the links on the top
I don’t know what to do from here
It IS censorship and they should stop saying it isn't, but they should clearly say "we will censor X because Y" and be transparent about it. Censorship where the majority of population agrees with it is still censorship, but approved and accepted for the greater good.
Now, the question is what does "hateful" mean? And where does "hateful" start and begin? Is saying "I hate my neighbour" and "I hate Nazis" the same? Is "I hate gay people" and "I hate Manchester United" the same? Why not focus on violence instead of hate. We should have the freedom to hate (hear me out...) but in the end it is a feeling and a preference and no censorship will change that. What should be prevented at all costs however, is violent content. People can love or hate whoever, but they shouldn't be allowed to call upon any type of violence towards them.
Someone hating someone doesn't change a thing, but someone calling for attacks against someone - this is a whole new dimension and deserves total censorship.
Censorship isn't policing people's feelings, you're allowed to hate. Why should you be allowed to express hate, and make those people feel unwelcome?
Your questions are also not as morally grey as you think. Manchester United isn't hated for a core part of their being, they're not victims of violence, they're not a class of person who has been enslaved or erased or mistreated throughout their existence.
Individual freedom needs to take a back seat to collective freedom, and the freedom to self expression, identity, and well being for all. Freedom to oppress isn't freedom. Nobody is free unless we're all free.
Well, I partly agree. Collective freedom does come before personal freedom. But, not everyone hates just because of the "being".
For ex. a lot of refugees in Germany are hated not because they are from middle east, not because they are islamic, but for the sole reason that they are abusing the welfare system. They get free social apartments with monthly allowance that is higher than some peoples pensions, from which they still need to pay their apartment. It's not hate because of what they are, but because of what they do. And that is ok, because we hate pedophiles not because of the person, but because what they do or did in the past.
Also, there is no freedom from feeling offended and unwelcome. It is a feedback. A boy can feel unwelcome in a girls locker room, no problem there really. Feeling unwelcome probably has some reason behind it. You either should not be there, or you should be or not be doing something.
Although you have the start of a point here all you've done is stereotype a class of people. Hate people that abuse welfare, whether immigrant or not.
I hate welfare abusers -> some immigrants are welfare abusers -> I hate immigrants as a class of person
That's not rational
It's simple. If your rights infringe on my rights, and there is no way for me to avoid the "you", whatever it may be at the moment, it should be regulated.
Go ahead and hate gays, but on a multicultural/multi-national platform that over a 3rd of the population use, you shouldn't be allowed to project that because it makes gay people feel unsafe. It infringes on their humanity.
Just because a group is immune to the intricacies of this, re: straight and white, shouldn't be a license for them to say and do whatever they want.
Try a group of gay people against straights, see how long that group lasts.
Why the double meaning
Here on Lemmy, people who claim to advocate for freedom of speech and information, demanding for social networks to be shutdown and people to be censored based on unknown and ambiguous criteria, without even understanding the implications of it.
Details at six
in a year Lemmy will be a cesspool of extremist thoughts and opinions. left, right, doesn't matter.
the average Lemmy user is become far more caustic towards any differing opinions and that directly increases the toxicity of the platform.
this is why mods are trying to be pedantic about the rules in communities, but unfortunately they're only accelerating it.
for a truly free and moderated platform a mechanism must be put in place that allows the community itself to self-moderate. unfortunately every new platform wants to start out as Twitter or Meta or Reddit. All three of these platforms failed in their goals of becoming a better socialmedia platform while exceeding expectations for financial viability.
IMO communities should have a cap limit of members that can grow over time of positive growth. if there's negative growth the community must resolve the issues together or be forced to shrink and lose members.
this doesn't mean the community blocks access, it just means you can't post content or comments.
Who decides what is hateful and worthy of removal? How is it not censorship? This is such a dumb article lol
You don’t have to be a free speech advocate. It’s fine if you want censorship, just quit changing definitions to make yourself sound less authoritarian.
There's a fundamental Americanized understanding of censorship as de facto BAD. So in order to justify doing what is very obviously a form of censorship, we don't establish a justifiable and transparent process for censoring content. We just redefine the thing we're doing as "Not Censorship".
At the same time, with so much of social media in the hands of a tiny minority of mega-advertisers, the debate is pointless. *We* don't get to decide what is or is not censured. The advertisers do. Smears against ethnic groups or religious movements or people of a particular gender or persuasion are only prohibited when they interfere with the distribution of marketing materials.
Now that advertisers have sufficiently A/B tested their marketing material, there's no reason to explicitly prohibit bigoted content because you can simply cloister particular communities into atomized walled gardens of advertising media.
I can sell Bud Light Fuck The Trans cans to the evangelical chuds, I can sell Bud Light Israel Did Nothing Wrong to Zionists, and I can sell Bud Light Communism Will Win to the Tankies. Everyone can have their own boutique Bud Light experience and sales of piss beer can keep going up forever.
I feel like it is still censorship, but a degree of censorship required for public safety is tolerable...
Unless he's saying that social media sites policing content on their platform isn't censorship, because it's not. It's only censorship if it's a government doing it, you have the right to control what is said on a platform you own
The amount of public space, both real and virtual, is decreasing dramatically. I think limits on private censorship should definitely exist.
Excellent point
Deleted by author
That's how it's in the EU, the DSA only applies to large providers. It's kinda like the fairness doctrine in broadcasting but in the digital domain, e.g. TikTok is currently in hot waters over the Romania elections because they did not take sufficient precautions to make sure that everything's fair and square.
Because size obliges. If I want to smelt some cans in my backyard I can just do that provided I have a "fireplace" -- which is just an area set up to be suitable to have a fire. If I want to build an industrial-scale aluminium smelter I have to get permits and everything. The public interest in the latter is much larger, that's why I have to jump through hoops and follow regulations.
(I can't burn garden waste though, gotta give it to the municipality to compost. A matter of waste of perfectly fine organic material and unnecessary emissions).
If I make sandwiches and people decide to eat my sandwiches then why should the government require me to follow basic health and safety.
Service offered to the general public should expect to be regulated.
He just wants more censorship. They will ban “hateful” content, and then reclassify anything they don’t like as hateful. We’re already seeing a number of platforms and institutions labeling criticism of Israel as hate speech.
I think the difference is between protecting wealth and power vs protecting basic human rights.
It's censorship one way or the other. The paradox of tolerance comes into play. We can't ignore hate, it needs to be visible so people can be on guard, but we also can't let it take over by letting it run roughshod and unchecked. Those in charge of media and social media are in the first camp - protecting wealth and power, letting hate run rampant. It drives profits and engagement, the extremes of politics they support give them control.
If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. —Noam Chomsky
I mean, sure, but does that mean people get to express themselves everywhere all the time?
I go to work and there’s always a couple fuckers who bring up their hateful opinions in a “I’m not racist but,” way.
It affects my productivity when I have to hear that bullshit all day while trying to get them to stop in a diplomatic way.
I can’t say it so directly, but it’s not censorship to say “shut up and let me work”
If they’re disturbing you from working, that’s an issue independent from the message they’re expressing, so freedom of expression does not apply.
Ok, now I argue that the constant bombardment of misinformation and hate speech we face online and through the media clearly affects people’s ability to live their lives, and is no different than the guy talking my ear off at work.
I’m not saying they can’t express themselves. I’m just saying that we don’t have to listen, but with the current state of things we’re being forced to listen.
Nobody is forcing you to read anyone’s comments on Facebook.
No, but we're on the receiving end of the consequences of those comments.
When they come for you because they're acting on some shit that Zuckerberg's algorithm amplified, your shallow moralizing won't make any difference.
This is a stupid distinction to make. There is no speech that doesn't affect people materially.
That’s not what the distinction is about. The important thing is whether you want to shut them down because of what opinion they’re expressing, or how they’re expressing it.
Some might call it a.. what's that word? Responsibility?
Like that whole neighbor and community upstanding injustice and leveraging their privilege for the have nots thing that has defined modern human society up until Cambridge Analytica?
a belief held by most reasonable people and only opposed by Nazis
So the ACLU are Nazis now?
i mean they've historically defended nazis yes
That doesn’t make them Nazis. It makes them defenders of free speech.
Free speech protects unpopular speech. Popular speech doesn’t need to be protected.
This isn't about free speech. This is about amplification and publication of speech.
You can say whatever you want, but we shouldn't guarantee you a megaphone to say it.
The platform isn’t the megaphone. That’s the algorithm.
If you’re wanting their access to platforms limited, I’d like the know where you draw the line. Are they allowed to text hate speech to each other? Publish their own email or print newsletters? Should we ban them from access to printers (or printing press while we’re at it)? Should they be allowed to have hateful conversations with large groups of each other?
A social media site is not a publisher.
no it makes them defenders of nazis. if youre at a table with ten nazis, youre at a table of eleven nazis
So you’re an authoritarian bootlicker who can’t tell the difference between defending free speech vs spouting hateful speech.
I’ll defend a Nazi’s right to say their hateful shit. I’ll also gladly plead guilty to an assault charge over beating their ass for it.
They shouldn’t fear the government for their speech. They should fear physical retaliation from their community.
And those that still think fReE sPEECh is an acceptable concept in the modern world?
The freedom to speak has nothing to do with being heard.
Free speech is absolutely an acceptable concept, but it's merely a restriction on government.
Private platforms are free to drop you from their platform if they don't like your speech, and you can be prosecuted if your speech violates a law (e.g. hate speech). Platforms can also restrict the types of speech allowed on their platforms. None of that is a violation of free speech.
Free speech is only violated if governments place a restriction on the speech itself, or force private entities to enforce restrictions.
It isn't. Free speech is a right the gov can give you, but it's also just a concept.
Governments don't grant rights, they can only restrict them.
They can recognize them. But nice strawman.
In what sense is algoritmically-amplified, targeted data transmission speech? It's of a scale that makes it qualitatively vastly different, and its impact has nothing to do with human speech or the press before the time of the internet (with the exception of yellow journalism, and we all know how well that served us).
I defend the right for you to say what you want, with few restrictions. But that doesn't mean you can set up a 250 kwatt PA system outside my bedroom window and 3 AM and shake me out of my bed with the subsonics. And that's where we are with the oligopoly social media providers.
Ya know I never thought I'd see the day that a marginalized people would protest free speech fundamentally. This is just next level stupid.
Free speech without consequences is what fascists are after. Free speech is an action to which they want no reaction or even worse when there is a negative reaction (also a desired goal) they will use that to attack the structures attempting to uphold peace.
And it'll only be their speech that's free.
Yes that's why the Chinese are such big proponents of free speech!
Post free speech. They have already finished their objective.
It's all about control
Not in the way you're implying, it isn't.
The same people with toddler brain and "it's not fair!!!"
These are platforms. It isn't censorship because they are private for-profit entities. They can host or deny any speech they want. And we can post on them or not and take our content elsewhere.
It is censorship, PERIOD
Why is this not as simple as adding a setting button for moderation of hateful content? The user can decide to filter it out.
And who decides whether content is hateful?
Moderator groups that users can choose between.
Moderators elected by real users would be a positive development. Choosing between groups of mods is second-best but better than nothing.
That's my ideal as well.
As long as what's allowed is not in the hands of the government, I'm happy. If it is, once the leadership changes, those laws don't look so good.
O'Brien, he's trustworthy
Conan? Days Gone? Waterskis?
Orwell
Content moderators per community guidelines. Why is this so hard?
And who do you select as moderators? Who ensures their moderation is consistent with community guidelines? What are the consequences if they moderate unfairly?
If we are talking platforms, then the employees of that platform. If we are talking federation, then the community and groups leading the communities. The consequences are the same as always. Bans for rule violations, and the freedom we all share to use or not use these platforms.
As long as we're keeping the government out of it, I'm happy. People need the ability to vote with their feet and use other platforms, and that's not feasible if the moderation comes from government rules.
Platforms can and will use the law as an excuse to push their agenda. "Oops, that looks like hate speech, it's out of my hands" to any content they don't like. A law like that justifies bad behavior and silence of dissent.
Are we redefining words now?
I mean there has always been illegal speech, we just don't usually call it censorship.
We're *always* redefining words, that's how language works. This isn't even close to the most egregious within the last couple decades.
Yeah, "purchasing" movies or shows comes to mind. When streaming services revoke access and never grant a way to download them, did you ever really purchase the movie or did you just rent it?
An excellent example of the negative impact of the manipulation of definitions.
Language works when words have a common meaning between the speaker and the listener. When 2 parties have 2 different interpretations of the same word because 1 decided they were going to manipulate into meaning something different from the commonly understood one, language breaks down, and we get senseless arguments among people who otherwise agree outside of semantics.
So no, that's not how language works.
Literally means figuratively now.
Yes, language changes, that is why you don't rely solely on individual words to define your argument.
The reason people might argue despite agreeing outside semantics is that they never bothered to go beyond a very basic explanation of their argument. If your sole disagreement comes from a differing interpretation of a word... then do your best to define your argument better. Otherwise you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Which is an excellent example of how stupid this is because this word has literally lost all meaning, thank you.
My argument is that manipulating definitions to suit an agenda is stupid nonsense.
"BAAAHHH!!! YOU'RE CENSORING MY HATE SPEECH, RACIST SLURS AND DEATH THREATS!!!! WAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!"
That CANNOT be the arguement you stand behind.
I mean, we do that. Just say it's good to censor bad things. There's nothing wrong with that, so don't lie about what you're doing.
Censorship will attract scrutiny, they prefer term "modding" and they do it as charity, boy, take off your pants...
No one said it had to be platformed, but call a spade a spade
The argument is the dictionary.
Which one?
like how the right redefines free speech to mean hate speech
Which is absolutely disgusting, especially when they try to apply it to private platforms, where that right doesn't exist.
Free speech means the government cannot arrest you purely for your speech. It doesn't mean social media has to let you on your platform or retain your hateful posts.
Censorship means that some higher authority wants some information not to be seen by certain people. The target of censorship is therefore the readers/listeners and not primarily the person writing/speaking. Hence if the readers/listeners don't actually want to read/hear the hateful drivel that some person shouts into the void, removing it isn't censorship but content curation.
And what if 50% of people want to read what you consider hateful drivel?
They can go somewhere else and talk to each other there.
Also block the source of speech.
But they don't care to block, the goal is to suppress the speech.
The problem with blocking is this. It's not a communally accepted part of any website. Here's what I mean by that. Lots of websites say they allow you to block people. What they mean is they allow you to mute people. This can mean something as simple as you can still see their posts but you can't interact (but they can see and interact with your posts (upvote/downvote etc), but can't talk to you. That's problematic. I feel like a block should mean block. I. E. The web host or platform completely isolated you from one another so that it appears on the user side of things as if you never existed. But that's problematic too. On Lemmy, if I block someone I lose all post history related to that section of the post where the interaction took place. I can't go back to my own comments. I cannot see my own comments.
Then there's the problem of block or mute lists having a finite number. If you have a ten year old account somewhere and you have been muting or blocking people for all ten of those years, eventually you will run out of available space on the block list and there's no good way to purge the list. You very often can't back it up, can't auto purge accounts that are dead or no longer in use, can't even generally see if the people you blocked are still active in a way that insulates and protects you.
If the goal is to suppress speech that implies that the person/entity doing the suppression is in a position of authority and not following the will of their constituency. So if a mod gets hundreds of reports about a post or comment, some action is warranted because the community is speaking out against it.
That's important to what we're talking about here.
It's not a right to harass people, and you're not entitled to others' megaphones
I don't disagree with you. But calling it anything other than what it is is disingenuous and misleading. Like when you buy a movie and it isn't available to download and the streaming service takes away access, did you really purchase that movie or did you just rent it? Words have meaning is all I'm saying.
Words also have connotations.
Human rights violations aside The EFF and Techdirt have already said that it is hate speech and effectively suppresses the free speech of gay and trans. Do you know better than these sources? The latter is like the very person who states that anti-hate speech laws are First Amendment violations. He said it loud and clear: this is actual censorship of LGBT voices.
Is it not censorship to allow violent assholes to scare minorities into silence?
No, that’s not what “censorship” means.
You have probably not heard of the heckler's veto
I'd say that censorship when enacted by governments is violence and there's no smaller minority than the individual. That said, if the UN Rights Chief wants to censor certain things, he should just say it. Besides, I don't put much faith in an org who puts Iran as the chair of the human rights council. Stances like this and the OP's link are reasons why there's a ground swelling in the US for withdrawing from the UN.
No they just have oppositional defiance disorder. Not recognizing that protecting every individual also means working against prejudiced hate means you're going to fail every time.
It's only censorship if it's something I personally agree with.
Also, propaganda is not speech.
Propaganda is just some speech that has a political agenda. Most propaganda isn't false.
It's literally censorship, but I argue it's acceptable - even desirable and laudable - censorship
@Ledivin @Sunshine having constitutional rights and limitations, would figure under censorship?
What?
@Ledivin actions against discriminating someone for their racial, sexual, ethnic belonging are in line with constitutional demands
...and what does that have to do with what i said?
Whole censoring content should get flipped otherway round. Meaning instead doing it from up to down like it is done now, it should be done down to up. Instead coverments, companies, platforms doing censoring, there should be tools to do it by end user.
If I say "X is shit", then that is my opinion. But if some other user do not like that i said "X is shit". Then that person should have way to filter out "X is shit" content.
So end user is person who decides what is shown, not some higer entity.
individuals create echo chambers: if someone spouts intolerant garbage, and the people who fight that garbage block the speech, there’s nobody to oppose it and without voices speaking out against it, it becomes mainstream
if society doesn’t enforce rules around hate speech, it places a burden on minorities to defend themselves from hate, otherwise hate becomes the mainstream viewpoint
You have it backward. Censorship is what creates echo chambers.
Deleted by author
Ok Elon
The First Amendment exists to protect controversial speech. No one is getting jailed for discussing the weather or the latest Marvel movie (well, except maybe in North Korea). When governments and corporations can arbitrarily classify things as "hate speech" you better believe they're going to use it to silence dissent.
The EFF and Techdirt have already said that it is hate speech and effectively suppresses the free speech of gay and trans. Do you know better than these sources? Where were you when bigots banned books? Did you protest for First Amendment when three racist groups banned books all over the country? Did you protest when these same platforms shadow banned lgbt voices? So you don't care about First Amendment, you are just against LGBT lives in particular.
Your first amendment protects you from the government. It does not protect you from actions taken by companies or other people based on your speech.
Exactly. I can say disgusting things all I want in public, and I can absolutely be shut down on private platforms like SM for saying the exact thing without there being a violation of free speech.
When government is coercing companies to censor information it is censorship, and a violation of the 1st Amendment.
I guess that primarily depends on whether or not you understand the definition of coercion.
What do we call it when companies coerce government into enacting policy that's detrimental to the general welfare of the country?
These mods are around fedi too, can't tell who their handlers are or they are just generic bootlicker labouring for free.
The biases are so obvious lol
More UN bullshit.
And we say we are living in a democracy. Mark my word, there is not a SINGLE democracy in the world. It sounds good on paper but the technicalities are far from theory.
Democracy isn't about getting your own way.
True democracy (Direct Democracy) can't happen - you'd need to vote in every single decision. Without everyone's decision, nothing could get done. It's bad enough for a family of four to agree what movie to watch, let alone a whole country. It would be democratic if most people watched what they wanted, but the logistics for a country ain't gonna work.
That's why most Western countries in the world have Representative Democracy - we elect people to do that stuff on our behalf, and are aware of affecting factors. And by and large, it works. Sure, there are always failings and scandals and someone can point these out, because human beings like to cheat and have their own agendas, and of course, power corrupts. Sadly, there is no form of government that is safe from subversion.
If you don't like a decision, vote for a representative that you think will do more of what you want. Or form an effective protest.
The voting system used is important. "Pick the one you want, most votes wins" sounds perfectly usable but it trends towards two main parties. There is undue pressure on the voter to choose the main party they dislike the least so avoid the main party they dislike the most. It gets worse the deeper we look at the "winner take all" (first past the post) voting system (used in the USA, UK).
I don't know what an effective protest would look like but that's probably the better option. People tend to get insulted or bored if you try to explain how their vote doesn't really matter.
That's the problem. You can elect any representative but you can't ensure its a good one if the voters themselves are the choke-point, maybe you decide not to vote, vote based on trends, vote in panic or vote for some ideology rather than what should really matter to everyone in a long term.
I wonder how is US a true democracy. Its a two-party system, you can argue its better than China's one-party system or Democratic People's Republic of Korea (ahem!) but that's all there is to it.
Deleted by moderator
Why do you have to wait for your admins to do so when you could just block us today yourself?