Why it’ll make the Fediverse more popular so other big companies join them!
Comment on Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, claims Human Rights Watch.
dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 6 months agoAnd we want to allow them to integrate with the Fediverse why, exactly?
Deceptichum@kbin.social 6 months ago
chitak166@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Because the fediverse is for everyone, even people who you don’t like.
dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 6 months ago
It’s not the people I’m concerned with, it’s the objectively evil social media megacorporation.
sour@kbin.social 6 months ago
is it for genocide enablers
schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 6 months ago
Because that will enable people to see and interact with the things their users post without themselves being under their control.
JustSomePerson@kbin.social 6 months ago
Because we are not censorship happy pieces of shit. We judge every statement for what it is, rather than applying guilt by association in three steps.
Most people who want to block Meta from the fediverse want to do it because they want to block people's opinions and statements from reaching them. They want the fediverse to be a "safe space" (a term which thankfully has lost most of its momentum in the last few years) where no dissenting or nuanced opinion is welcome. Somehow you're trying to turn Meta's similar behavior into an argument against them, even though it's an example of both organizations doing similar things (prohibiting unwanted opinions).
dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 6 months ago
No, sane members hare just don’t want to see pro-corporate horseshit, bots and Meta’s psyop motherfuckers trying to shape opinions here with their corporate agenda like they already do on their own platform. If users themselves want to attempt this sort of thing, that’s on them and we can deal with that. Meta is guilty preemptively, and we should not treat them as if they aren’t. This is just yet more proof. The fact that Meta does this is not an “opinion.” It’s a fact.
We already ban tons of content here. Try posting some pro-Nazi stuff, for instance, and see what happens. There are a whole host of actions and topics that are explicitly prohibited just in the lemmy.world ToS. Trying to claim that there’s no censorship on this instance or in the Fediverse as a whole is such a monumentally stupid fucking statement that no one can take anything else you said seriously.
Go shill for your megacorporation somewhere else.
chitak166@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Why do all of you people reply like this as though you’re objectively correct?
JustSomePerson@kbin.social 6 months ago
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 6 months ago
dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 6 months ago
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. If you’d like to take it a step further, instances that are already generally accepted as harmful due to their content or who operates them are already defederated with most/all other major instances, for good reason. This is no different.
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.