this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2023
1 points (100.0% liked)

Asshole Design

1176 readers
8 users here now

Nothing comes before profit -- especially not the consumer.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

They shouldn't be monitored either way in my opinion as it's just a bunch of links, but especially not while still private.

Ultimately I don't think it quite matters if it technically is bookmarks or "collections", they seem clearly used in the same manner in this case.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Eh… the ultimate question, what if it’s a collection of CSAM links?

Some moderation is fine, especially when it can be shared pretty easily. This isn’t private bookmarks, it’s “private” bookmark collections.

Edit: For those downvoting, this is the same concept as a private Reddit/facebook community. Just because it’s “invite only” doesn’t mean it’s free from following the rules of the whole site.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Words used to have meaning, you know. Like, for example, the word “private”.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Private has various meanings in various contexts. If I take you to the private booth at a club, does it mean I’m allowed to slap around the waiter? No, of course not because rules still apply in private places hosted by a third party.

If you want privacy in the context you explicitly mean, you shouldn’t be using anyone else’s hardware to begin with. If you expect any third party company to be fine with posting anything on them, you’re gonna have a bad time.

For example, how many lemmy instances are fine with you direct linking to piracy torrents?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’d not expect the private booth to have the club’s employee sitting there and waiting for me to do something that is against the rules preemptively.

We mostly argue about semantics, but in this instance you are trying to excuse some very questionable behaviour by companies by saying something along the lines of “well you better go and live in a forest then”. And I don’t think that’s a good take.

For example, how many Lemmy instances are fine with you direct linking to piracy torrents?

Irrelevant, as all content on Lemmy is public in a proper sense of this word.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Irrelevant, as all content on Lemmy is public in a proper sense of this word.

/sigh

How many file hosting services let you share pirated data, publicly?

Before you start in on “it’s not the same” it absolutely is. It’s private data, which is being shared through a link publicly. Just like bookmark collections.

And once that file has been identified as piracy, it is very often fingerprinted and blacklisted from not only that instance, but all instances past, present and future.

That’s essentially what is going on here.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

Scary illigal content here

I guess we test and see whether I get banned.

Also, it’s not the same. A link to a website is not “pirated content”. A link to a website in a “collection” not shared with anybody is not publicly available pirated content.

Why would Google preemptively ban a set of characters that does not constitute a slur and is perfectly legal to exist?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

CSAM is never an excuse to violate everyone’s privacy.

I hate seeing people implying that it is. It’s no better then Patriot Act B.s that took away privacy in the name of catching terrorists.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

I don't care if you're mad about it like I said. I just care about accuracy. The person in the screenshot and this thread's title are both inaccurate.