this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
455 points (94.0% liked)

Technology

59314 readers
4948 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] JustSomePerson@kbin.social 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I am not claiming that there's no censorship in the fediverse. I'm claiming that there is censorship, meaning that the fact that Meta also uses censorship is no argument against them. You censor people you call nazis, they censor people who think three generations of occupation in Palestine is a bad thing. Both have problems. This piece of news about Meta censorship is not an argument against federation.

[–] sour@kbin.social 3 points 10 months ago
[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

This piece of news is more proof (as if we didn't already have enough) that Meta specifically is an entity that cannot be trusted to act in good faith, and therefore integrating with them is a risk we should not take. In case you cannot understand this concept, remember that instances that are generally accepted as harmful due to their content, behavior, or just who operates them are already defederated with most/all other major instances, for good reason. This is no different. Except for one detail: We already have decades of experience with Meta/Facebook and their evil, monopolistic, and user hostile behavior. They are a known quantity to us.

You were the one who tried to narrow the goalposts to make the argument specifically only about censorship. All of Meta's bad behavior is valid cause for concern. Institutionalized politically motivated censorship is just one aspect of it. What we do and don't allow on our own particular instances has no bearing on it. Trying to bleat "both sides bad" is not a valid argument in this case.

[–] JustSomePerson@kbin.social -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

trusted to act in good faith

You are not acting in good faith when you are arguing that your members should be blocked from communicating with anybody on Meta servers, because of guilt by association. What you don't allow on your particular instances has great bearing, because it shows that you are no different from them, other than in which opinions you consider to be worthy of suppressing.

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Meta: Mass suppression of users and political topics, overt attempts at manipulation of public opinion via bots and paid shills, deliberate construction of their algorithms to display specific content targeted at users designed to sway their opinion or get them to buy something, ads, massive violations of privacy, spying, tracking, mishandling of user data, tacit approval of hate speech and fascist rhetoric, and flagrant violation of both domestic and foreign laws.

Me: Hey, we can see what they're doing over there and we really shouldn't let them bring it over here.

You: "YoU'rE BoTh ThE SaMe!!!!!!!!"

Do you actually believe the horseshit you're spouting, or are you just that out of touch with reality?

[–] JustSomePerson@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Grow up. It is not possible for you to hide from the real world. The suppression of opinion in the fediverse is real. You admit so yourself two comments above. You call them nazis and evil, which is childish and unproductive. Have you considered communicating with those with different opinions instead of attempting to ban them from participation in society?

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You really just advocated for not excluding Nazis from society.

And, your true colors are shown. Good job.

[–] JustSomePerson@kbin.social 1 points 10 months ago

No. I advocated for people that imbeciles call nazis to not be excluded from society. There is a significant difference, but if you live inside a bubble, like some fediverse serverse, you might be so brain washed that you think everybody who thinks a little bit different from you is a nazi. They're not.