It’s not censorship to stop hateful online content, insists UN rights chief : technology

[–] [email protected] 34 points 2 days ago (20 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".

load more comments (20 replies)

[+] [email protected] -17 points 2 days ago

More UN bullshit.

[+] [email protected] -13 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

It's literally censorship, but I argue it's acceptable - even desirable and laudable - censorship

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

@Ledivin @Sunshine having constitutional rights and limitations, would figure under censorship?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

What?

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

@Ledivin actions against discriminating someone for their racial, sexual, ethnic belonging are in line with constitutional demands

[–] [email protected] 130 points 2 days ago (9 children)

A tolerant society can not tolerate intolerance.

load more comments (8 replies)

[+] [email protected] -13 points 2 days ago (8 children)

Are we redefining words now?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

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.

load more comments (4 replies)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's not a right to harass people, and you're not entitled to others' megaphones

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 days ago (6 children)

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.

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 days ago (4 children)

We're always redefining words, that's how language works. This isn't even close to the most egregious within the last couple decades.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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?

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

[–] [email protected] 22 points 2 days ago (4 children)

"BAAAHHH!!! YOU'RE CENSORING MY HATE SPEECH, RACIST SLURS AND DEATH THREATS!!!! WAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!"

That CANNOT be the arguement you stand behind.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 2 days ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 days ago

No one said it had to be platformed, but call a spade a spade

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 30 points 2 days ago

I mean there has always been illegal speech, we just don't usually call it censorship.

load more comments (3 replies)

Technology

Our Rules

Approved Bots