this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2025
1320 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

67422 readers
3512 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 news or articles.
  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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com 38 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

can someone explain to me the difference between corporate and government censorship, when corporations and the government are definitely fucking?

[–] sik0fewl@lemmy.ca 10 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

One is illegal, the other is not.

[–] melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

and does that word mean anything in this context?

[–] drzoidberg@lemmy.world 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

No. Nothing reddit is doing is illegal. When you sign up for a service like reddit, there is a TOS, which allows them to ban, warn, limit interaction, etc, at their discretion when terms of their TOS are violated.

If their TOS doesn't allow pictures of butterflies, and you post pictures of butterflies, you will receive a warning. Continue posting butterflies, you'll get banned, until eventually receiving a permaban. There is absolutely nothing illegal about it, because their TOS specifically states no butterfly pictures.

[–] melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

no

so it doesn't mean anything. glad we agree laws were only ever an excuse, a way to keep the peasantry from banding together to protect their own when men rode in on horseback to take one of theirs, and a way to absolve a parasitic nobleman of his atrocities with a wrist slap, and disperse a crowd of raging peasants like a magic spell.

see, I remember getting banned on reddit for this several years ago. it was a thing. there was no rule against it; they just decided to. and now they're actively touching the president's dick (actual president, the white south african wannabe supervillain with the ketamine addiction, not the mcdonalds guy who technically puts us in the same continuity as the 'home alone' movies) which makes them effectively part of the government. and they're doing censorship of ideas they don't like. which is on paper supposed to be illegal in the united states. that was what I was getting at.

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If they’re doing so in cooperation with or at the direction of anyone in government, it is also illegal.

[–] sik0fewl@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If we're talking first amendment, it allows for a lot.

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It doesn’t allow for this. Already been ruled on.

[–] sik0fewl@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Like abortion has already been ruled on, right.

Based on the text of the first amendment, it seems like a slam dunk to me to destroy free speech as long as it's not Congress doing it.

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

There no constitutional amendment protecting abortion.

[–] sik0fewl@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Nor free speech. That was supposed to be my retort, not yours.

[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It’s actually the very first amendment.

[–] sik0fewl@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago

Yes, I mentioned it three comments ago. I thought you might read it.

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago

abortion isnt constitutionally protected.

[–] commander@lemmings.world 10 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

People get mad over government censorship, but condone corporate censorship if it's something they want censored.

but when the corporation is slobbering all over the president's dick while it feeds his ketamine addiction, how is it different from a part of the government?

[–] drzoidberg@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Going against an agreement you agreed to abide by is not censorship. If you don't like the agreement, don't agree to it.

[–] commander@lemmings.world 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Agreeing to be censored doesn't mean you're not being censored.

Lol. The pro-censorship crowd really is a sight to behold. Glad I'm not loyal to it!

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It's not illegal for the other party to include it, but it is absolutely censorship by any definition of the word.

[–] drzoidberg@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If you're stupid, yes. If you have half a brain, it's not.

If you play in the MLB and take steroids, you get suspended, and if you keep taking steroids, you get a lifetime suspension. Steroids aren't illegal. That's not censorship. It's breaking the rules and facing the consequences of breaking the rules.

If you're stupid and think facing consequences for breaking a rule you agreed to is censorship, that's on you for being stupid.

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] drzoidberg@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Censorship is not just a concept of law.