this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2025
377 points (94.8% liked)

Technology

60355 readers
4830 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 content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  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, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


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

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

i mean they've historically defended nazis yes

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

That doesn’t make them Nazis. It makes them defenders of free speech.

Free speech protects unpopular speech. Popular speech doesn’t need to be protected.

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

This isn't about free speech. This is about amplification and publication of speech.

You can say whatever you want, but we shouldn't guarantee you a megaphone to say it.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 hours ago

The platform isn’t the megaphone. That’s the algorithm.

If you’re wanting their access to platforms limited, I’d like the know where you draw the line. Are they allowed to text hate speech to each other? Publish their own email or print newsletters? Should we ban them from access to printers (or printing press while we’re at it)? Should they be allowed to have hateful conversations with large groups of each other?

[–] [email protected] -4 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

no it makes them defenders of nazis. if youre at a table with ten nazis, youre at a table of eleven nazis

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

So you’re an authoritarian bootlicker who can’t tell the difference between defending free speech vs spouting hateful speech.

I’ll defend a Nazi’s right to say their hateful shit. I’ll also gladly plead guilty to an assault charge over beating their ass for it.

They shouldn’t fear the government for their speech. They should fear physical retaliation from their community.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 43 minutes ago* (last edited 24 minutes ago) (2 children)

That's the problem with the internet, really. You can't punch these a-holes through your monitor or keyboard. The consequence here is moderation instead of physical violence. Removing these people from their platform is the punch in the nuts that they deserve. It's still free speech because these are non-government websites.

Edit to make it less mean sounding.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 30 minutes ago* (last edited 30 minutes ago)

Exactly, which is why this should be handled by the platforms as they choose instead of by government requirement. If you don't like how a platform moderates content, don't use that platform.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 28 minutes ago

Considering this moderation is often done in cooperation with government censors, and the executives working at these platforms are often former government, the lines are blurred enough that I don’t support it.

We need more legal blocks to prevent the government from getting around the constitutional protections by coordinating with corporate third parties.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 hours ago (4 children)

And those that still think fReE sPEECh is an acceptable concept in the modern world?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 23 minutes ago* (last edited 23 minutes ago)

Free speech is absolutely an acceptable concept, but it's merely a restriction on government.

Private platforms are free to drop you from their platform if they don't like your speech, and you can be prosecuted if your speech violates a law (e.g. hate speech). Platforms can also restrict the types of speech allowed on their platforms. None of that is a violation of free speech.

Free speech is only violated if governments place a restriction on the speech itself, or force private entities to enforce restrictions.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 31 minutes ago

Ya know I never thought I'd see the day that a marginalized people would protest free speech fundamentally. This is just next level stupid.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 hours ago

The freedom to speak has nothing to do with being heard.

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

Free speech without consequences is what fascists are after. Free speech is an action to which they want no reaction or even worse when there is a negative reaction (also a desired goal) they will use that to attack the structures attempting to uphold peace.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 33 minutes ago

Yes that's why the Chinese are such big proponents of free speech!