Comment on Reddit will warn users who repeatedly upvote banned content

melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

• sik0fewl@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  One is illegal, the other is not.

  source

  • melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    and does that word mean anything in this context?

    source

    • drzoidberg@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      No. Nothing reddit is doing is illegal. When you sign up for a service like reddit, there is a TOS, which allows them to ban, warn, limit interaction, etc, at their discretion when terms of their TOS are violated.

      If their TOS doesn’t allow pictures of butterflies, and you post pictures of butterflies, you will receive a warning. Continue posting butterflies, you’ll get banned, until eventually receiving a permaban. There is absolutely nothing illegal about it, because their TOS specifically states no butterfly pictures.

      source

      • melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        no

        so it doesn’t mean anything. glad we agree laws were only ever an excuse, a way to keep the peasantry from banding together to protect their own when men rode in on horseback to take one of theirs, and a way to absolve a parasitic nobleman of his atrocities with a wrist slap, and disperse a crowd of raging peasants like a magic spell.

        see, I remember getting banned on reddit for this several years ago. it was a thing. there was no rule against it; they just decided to. and now they’re actively touching the president’s dick (actual president, the white south african wannabe supervillain with the ketamine addiction, not the mcdonalds guy who technically puts us in the same continuity as the ‘home alone’ movies) which makes them effectively the government. and they’re doing censorship of ideas they don’t like. which is on paper supposed to be illegal in the united states. that was what I was getting at.

        source
  • surph_ninja@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    If they’re doing so in cooperation with or at the direction of anyone in government, it is also illegal.

    source

    • sik0fewl@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      If we’re talking first amendment, it allows for a lot.

      source

      • surph_ninja@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        It doesn’t allow for this. Already been ruled on.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
• commander@lemmings.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  People get mad over government censorship, but condone corporate censorship if it’s something they want censored.

  source

  • melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    but when the corporation is slobbering all over the president’s dick while it feeds his ketamine addiction, how is it different from a part of the government?

    source
  • drzoidberg@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Going against an agreement you agreed to abide by is not censorship. If you don’t like the agreement, don’t agree to it.

    source

    • commander@lemmings.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Agreeing to be censored doesn’t mean you’re not being censored.

      Lol. The pro-censorship crowd really is a site to behold. Glad I’m not loyal to it!

      source

      • drzoidberg@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        [deleted]

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      It’s not illegal for the other party to include it, but it is absolutely censorship by any definition of the word.

      source

      • drzoidberg@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        If you’re stupid, yes. If you have half a brain, it’s not.

        If you play in the MLB and take steroids, you get suspended, and if you keep taking steroids, you get a lifetime suspension. Steroids aren’t illegal. That’s not censorship. It’s breaking the rules and facing the consequences of breaking the rules.

        If you’re stupid and think facing consequences for breaking a rule you agreed to is censorship, that’s on you for being stupid.

        source

        • -> View More Comments