The cascade of link bans came after Musk made a hand gesture at a Monday rally that many compared to a Nazi salute, which many cited in their protests, among other things.
Here on Lemmy, people who claim to advocate for freedom of speech and information, demanding for information shared on social networks to be controlled, shutdown and people to be censored based on unknown and ambiguous criteria, without even understanding the implications of it.
What does freedom of speech have to do with independent subreddits deciding they don’t want to serve content from a private company they don’t agree with?
That’s easy, freedom of speech means you can say what I want but not what you want, and it applies everywhere including in my dreams. So if you say something I don’t like in my dreams I can criminally charge you and take you to hell in a cell.
Edit: Thought this would be obvious satire, but here we are. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Look, I’m all for freedom of speech. I’m nearly as close to an absolutist as they come.
This is an example of a protest. Nobody is restricting anybody’s speech. They aren’t banning Musk-supporters. They aren’t censoring Trumpers. They are specifically banning links to a website owned by a billionaire who did a Nazi salute at an event where hundreds of millions if not billions of people would witness him.
Not to worry, you’re simply confusing freedom of speech with obliging private actors to consume content they don’t want to consume or disagree with. The first is a fundemental principle of democratic legal systems and recognized as a perempotry norm under international law. The second is authoritarianism.
There’s a growing number of legally illiterate people who think freedom of speech is absolute and even affords one the right to oblige others consume their speech through the government. That is fundamentally wrong and a complete misunderstanding of how these key principles of freedom work and have always worked in modern democratic systems.
Newsflash - freedom of speech is not absolute. Never has been. There are very specific, explicitly codified limitations. Why? Because words are the most powerful weapons and can be used to target and threaten the freedoms of other people, including their freedom to life. Which is why rights and obligations are always balanced against each other, following the principle of proportionality.
If you feel so strongly about not being able force others to consume content they don’t want to consume, then I have bad news for you - you are opposing democracy. But it seems like you, and many other like you, are just confused, rather than actively promoting anti-democratic standpoints. The truly sad part? The impact is the same regardless of intent.
It’s so typical to see 90% good argument and 10% insult the OP & half the country. If believers stuck to the 90% good argument and left out the insults you’d win a lot of followers.
Existence of mods goes against the concept of freedom of speech. People aren’t prevented from directly using Twitter themselves. They’d be on 4chan if they wanted something as close to an unfiltered internet.
We wouldn’t be on our respective instances that have blocked off entire instances and communities if we wanted to consume unfiltered internet content.
Here on Lemmy, people who claim to advocate for freedom of speech and information, demanding for information shared on social networks to be controlled, shutdown and people to be censored based on unknown and ambiguous criteria, without even understanding the implications of it.
Details at six
What does freedom of speech have to do with independent subreddits deciding they don’t want to serve content from a private company they don’t agree with?
That’s easy, freedom of speech means you can say what I want but not what you want, and it applies everywhere including in my dreams. So if you say something I don’t like in my dreams I can criminally charge you and take you to hell in a cell.
Edit: Thought this would be obvious satire, but here we are. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Look, I’m all for freedom of speech. I’m nearly as close to an absolutist as they come.
This is an example of a protest. Nobody is restricting anybody’s speech. They aren’t banning Musk-supporters. They aren’t censoring Trumpers. They are specifically banning links to a website owned by a billionaire who did a Nazi salute at an event where hundreds of millions if not billions of people would witness him.
Not to worry, you’re simply confusing freedom of speech with obliging private actors to consume content they don’t want to consume or disagree with. The first is a fundemental principle of democratic legal systems and recognized as a perempotry norm under international law. The second is authoritarianism.
There’s a growing number of legally illiterate people who think freedom of speech is absolute and even affords one the right to oblige others consume their speech through the government. That is fundamentally wrong and a complete misunderstanding of how these key principles of freedom work and have always worked in modern democratic systems.
Newsflash - freedom of speech is not absolute. Never has been. There are very specific, explicitly codified limitations. Why? Because words are the most powerful weapons and can be used to target and threaten the freedoms of other people, including their freedom to life. Which is why rights and obligations are always balanced against each other, following the principle of proportionality.
If you feel so strongly about not being able force others to consume content they don’t want to consume, then I have bad news for you - you are opposing democracy. But it seems like you, and many other like you, are just confused, rather than actively promoting anti-democratic standpoints. The truly sad part? The impact is the same regardless of intent.
Edit: Want to know more? Details at 6.
It’s so typical to see 90% good argument and 10% insult the OP & half the country. If believers stuck to the 90% good argument and left out the insults you’d win a lot of followers.
I don’t want any followers or believers. Calling it as I see it. That is all.
He’s a nazi. There’s no space it civil society for nazis.
Existence of mods goes against the concept of freedom of speech. People aren’t prevented from directly using Twitter themselves. They’d be on 4chan if they wanted something as close to an unfiltered internet.
We wouldn’t be on our respective instances that have blocked off entire instances and communities if we wanted to consume unfiltered internet content.
100, I get more dislikes here than I ever did on Reddit.
Downvotes are not a form of censorship.
Also, that sounds like a you problem, not an “us” problem.
I know downvotes aren’t censorship. Not really, I saw the change happen in real time. I was on Twitter before it was run by Feds.
Weird tangent, but ok