Comment on Reddit says it is not covered by new Online Safety Code as it has moved its jurisdiction to the Netherlands

GeneralInterest@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

• poo@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  He’s such a disgusting greedy little pig boy who frankly belongs in a deep hole where nobody will find him 🙏

  source
• SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  Absolutely fuck spez.

  But he’s right here. Just because he’s a fuckstick doesn’t mean he’s always wrong on every issue 100% of the time.

  Various forms of censorship under the flag of ‘online safety’ have been pushed by governments since the internet began to exist. And before that with print media and television. Censorship is not the answer. Never was. First it was for porn, then it was for video games, then it was for hate speech, it’s always something.

  But in the words of Captain Jean-Luc Picard,

  “With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.”

  Censorship must be opposed.

  source

  • banana@communick.news ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I disagree since I think censorship can be desired when combatting hate speech. Maybe we just disagree how exactly we use the word ‘censorship’.

    source

    • disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Who would you have define hate speech in the US? SCOTUS?

      Citizens may agree on the definition, but I wouldn’t trust our government to draw those lines.

      source

      • DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Many countries have working anti-hate speech laws. It’s not really a big problem for freedom of speech in those countries.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • theneverfox@pawb.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      No, the community needs to cyber bully them off the platform. They need to feel rejection for their words, not censorship. Censorship lets them frame themselves as the victim as they seek out a smaller echo chamber on the fringes. They need to learn their words will turn the community against them

      We still have to live with them. We can’t ignore them or silence them - we have to correct them

      source

      • sukhmel@programming.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        And what would happen when the community itself is built on hatred and welcomes hate wholeheartedly?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      You are addressing the wrong problem. You’re focusing on the symptom rather than the disease.

      Fighting hate speech rather than hatred itself only strengthens the hatred. As soon as you say “you mustn’t say that” you validate the hatred and give it power. Look at any counterculture, positive or negative. Trying to suppress it only validates it, gives it legitimacy as being important enough for the establishment to want to suppress, and if the people who might support the hatred already don’t like the people who would suppress the hate speech, you’ve just poured fuel on the fire.

      The problem to be fixed isn’t hate speech, it’s hatred. It’s a tougher problem to solve, but a much more important one that you will actually get a productive effect by solving it.

      source

      • banana@communick.news ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        You make a good point. Hate must be addressed at its root.

        I see hate speech censorship as important for protecting the victims/vulnerable. How can we protect these people without this censorship?

        Do you have any favourite examples of how a society can fight hatred?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • towerful@programming.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    It requires them to restrict certain categories of video, so that users cannot share content on cyberbullying, promoting eating disorders, promotion of self harm or incitement to hatred on a number of grounds.

    Yeh, fuck censorship. Let’s all be shitbags and do that stuff instead!

    source

    • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      To be fair, censorship on Reddit is already very very aggressive. I was banned for saying “yay” on a news thread about the death of the queen.

      source
    • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      You don’t have to be a porn star or even a porn consumer to oppose laws banning porn.

      And you don’t have to be a shitbag to recognize that, while well-intentioned, censorship is still censorship.

      I have absolutely no love whatsoever for the people who would spread such crap. I would love to get rid of it. But banning the speech doesn’t do that. It’s like smashing the altimeter in the airplane and then declaring that you’re not crashing anymore. But the reality is, smashing instruments in the airplane is never a great idea whether you are crashing or not. It just prevents you from seeing things you don’t want to. And you get hurt in the process.

      Censorship, historically, has never ended up anywhere good.

      source

      • towerful@programming.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Porn is performed by consenting adults and consumed by consenting adults.
        That’s why porn made from human trafficking, revenge porn (ie leaking nudes of an ex) etc are illegal in most sane countries.
        The idea being that porn doesn’t hurt anyone.

        Hate speech is harmful. It’s purpose is to hurt people.
        So yeh, it should be illegal.
        I have no issues discussing hate speech. I do have issues with hate speech being used.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • GeneralInterest@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I think reducing the visibility of some kinds of content can be good, especially for teenagers. E.g. when it comes to content around suicide, I think it is better if teenagers see “there is support for you, please speak to an anti-suicide charity for free on this phone number” instead of pro-suicide content.

    source

    • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      That I would actually very much agree with. As Elon himself said in the early days of the Twitter takeover, “free speech does not mean free reach”.

      This is also why I think engagement algorithms are a cancer on our civilization. If it is in a platforms monetary interest to amplify the most vile anger inducing stuff, be that stuff that is actively bad like hate speech or simply divisive like a lot of political crap, that is bad for our society. It pushes us farther apart when we should be coming together to fix the problems that we can agree on.

      source

      • GeneralInterest@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        As Elon himself said in the early days of the Twitter takeover, “free speech does not mean free reach”.

        I understood that to mean “I want to claim I’m a ‘free speech absolutist’ while actually only promoting things I agree with”

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  I agree, but what the Irish are doing is dumb. If reddit it hit with that, then so should Google and the whole of the internet, since everything can get you videos. No one should be in charge of sensoring the internet.

  source

  • Naryn@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    If you want to operate in a country, you have to abide by their laws.

    source

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      If you want to restrict your people more than the rest of the world, cut yourself off from the world wide web.

      source
  • Clanket@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    I’ve read your sentence multiple times and I’ve no idea what it means.

    source

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      I mean, there’s one typo where it says “it” instead of “is”, but other than that it all looks to make sense enough. By all the votes it looks like most people understand it just fine.

      source

      • Clanket@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        Google and other companies are being covered by it, as they are headquartered in Ireland. So what’s dumb about that?

        source

        • -> View More Comments