Technology

A tolerant society can not tolerate intolerance.

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

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.

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".

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

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.

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.

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

Are we redefining words now?

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

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

a belief held by most reasonable people and only opposed by Nazis

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all. —Noam Chomsky

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.

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.

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

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

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.

More UN bullshit.

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.