this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
707 points (95.5% liked)

Technology

72894 readers
2803 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
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Pistcow@lemm.ee 120 points 6 months ago (14 children)

A tolerant society can not tolerate intolerance.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Bgugi@lemmy.world 73 points 6 months ago (6 children)

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

[–] LadyAutumn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 6 months ago (25 children)

Misinformation and violent rhetoric about minorities is hate. It has no place in society and allowing it achieves nothing expect the proliferation of bigotry.

load more comments (25 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] walden@sub.wetshaving.social 36 points 6 months ago (10 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".

[–] drmoose@lemmy.world 20 points 6 months ago (9 children)

.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.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world 35 points 6 months ago (5 children)

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.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 6 points 6 months ago (2 children)

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.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Allero@lemmy.today 28 points 6 months ago

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.

[–] SorteKanin@feddit.dk 22 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 12 points 6 months ago

There will be no protection under the social contract for those who wish to violate it.

[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 15 points 6 months ago

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

[–] Zementid@feddit.nl 14 points 6 months ago

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.

[–] dx1@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] big_fat_fluffy@leminal.space 10 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

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.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

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,

[–] rimjob_rainer@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 6 months ago (9 children)

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?

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] surph_ninja@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

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.

[–] Shardikprime@lemmy.world 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NutinButNet@hilariouschaos.com 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›