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.
Comment on Meta censors pro-Palestinian views on a global scale, claims Human Rights Watch.
dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 6 months agoNo, 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.
JustSomePerson@kbin.social 6 months ago
sour@kbin.social 6 months ago
both sides
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.
JustSomePerson@kbin.social 6 months ago
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 6 months ago
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?
chitak166@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Why do all of you people reply like this as though you’re objectively correct?