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.
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.
GeneralInterest@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
towerful@programming.dev 12 hours 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!
yeahiknow3@lemmings.world 11 hours 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.
SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 3 hours 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.
towerful@programming.dev 3 hours 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.
banana@communick.news 12 hours 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’.
theneverfox@pawb.social 2 hours 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
disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 12 hours 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.
DarkDarkHouse@lemmy.sdf.org 8 hours ago
Many countries have working anti-hate speech laws. It’s not really a big problem for freedom of speech in those countries.
sukhmel@programming.dev 3 hours ago
Except for the countries that have anti-hate laws that are deliberately vague and specifically used to jail anyone who is disliked by the government. China and Russia come to mind as examples, but I’m sure they aren’t the only ones.
Besides hate-speech, I’m not sure how much should be censored really. China does a lot of censoring to ‘protect’ their citizens from everything, I’m not sure this would be a good thing even if that really was a goal.
And protecting children from traumatising content looks like another good thing to do, but under that banner I usually see governments doing whatever they want without caring about children past using their image.
disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
Those countries don’t have partisan polarization propaganda kindergarteners writing their legislation.