• @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3115 days ago

      I mean there has always been illegal speech, we just don’t usually call it censorship.

    • @Lost_My_Mind
      link
      English
      2315 days ago

      “BAAAHHH!!! YOU’RE CENSORING MY HATE SPEECH, RACIST SLURS AND DEATH THREATS!!! WAAAAAAHHHHH!!!”

      That CANNOT be the arguement you stand behind.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        1315 days ago

        I mean, we do that. Just say it’s good to censor bad things. There’s nothing wrong with that, so don’t lie about what you’re doing.

        • sunzu2
          link
          fedilink
          015 days ago

          Censorship will attract scrutiny, they prefer term “modding” and they do it as charity, boy, take off your pants…

        • @Zorque
          link
          English
          215 days ago

          Which one?

    • @Zorque
      link
      English
      1815 days ago

      We’re always redefining words, that’s how language works. This isn’t even close to the most egregious within the last couple decades.

      • Ulrich
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        15 days ago

        Language works when words have a common meaning between the speaker and the listener. When 2 parties have 2 different interpretations of the same word because 1 decided they were going to manipulate into meaning something different from the commonly understood one, language breaks down, and we get senseless arguments among people who otherwise agree outside of semantics.

        So no, that’s not how language works.

        • @Zorque
          link
          English
          315 days ago

          Literally means figuratively now.

          Yes, language changes, that is why you don’t rely solely on individual words to define your argument.

          The reason people might argue despite agreeing outside semantics is that they never bothered to go beyond a very basic explanation of their argument. If your sole disagreement comes from a differing interpretation of a word… then do your best to define your argument better. Otherwise you’re just arguing for the sake of arguing.

          • Ulrich
            link
            fedilink
            English
            4
            edit-2
            15 days ago

            Literally means figuratively now.

            Which is an excellent example of how stupid this is because this word has literally lost all meaning, thank you.

            then do your best to define your argument better.

            My argument is that manipulating definitions to suit an agenda is stupid nonsense.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        215 days ago

        Yeah, “purchasing” movies or shows comes to mind. When streaming services revoke access and never grant a way to download them, did you ever really purchase the movie or did you just rent it?

        • Ulrich
          link
          fedilink
          English
          215 days ago

          An excellent example of the negative impact of the manipulation of definitions.

    • katy ✨
      link
      fedilink
      English
      714 days ago

      like how the right redefines free speech to mean hate speech

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        114 days ago

        Which is absolutely disgusting, especially when they try to apply it to private platforms, where that right doesn’t exist.

        Free speech means the government cannot arrest you purely for your speech. It doesn’t mean social media has to let you on your platform or retain your hateful posts.

    • Natanael
      link
      fedilink
      English
      615 days ago

      It’s not a right to harass people, and you’re not entitled to others’ megaphones

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        815 days ago

        I don’t disagree with you. But calling it anything other than what it is is disingenuous and misleading. Like when you buy a movie and it isn’t available to download and the streaming service takes away access, did you really purchase that movie or did you just rent it? Words have meaning is all I’m saying.

        • OneMeaningManyNames
          link
          fedilink
          English
          815 days ago

          Words also have connotations.

          Human rights violations aside The EFF and Techdirt have already said that it is hate speech and effectively suppresses the free speech of gay and trans. Do you know better than these sources? The latter is like the very person who states that anti-hate speech laws are First Amendment violations. He said it loud and clear: this is actual censorship of LGBT voices.

        • Natanael
          link
          fedilink
          English
          515 days ago

          Is it not censorship to allow violent assholes to scare minorities into silence?

          • xigoi
            link
            fedilink
            English
            114 days ago

            No, that’s not what “censorship” means.

            • Natanael
              link
              fedilink
              English
              214 days ago

              You have probably not heard of the heckler’s veto

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -1
            edit-2
            15 days ago

            I’d say that censorship when enacted by governments is violence and there’s no smaller minority than the individual. That said, if the UN Rights Chief wants to censor certain things, he should just say it. Besides, I don’t put much faith in an org who puts Iran as the chair of the human rights council. Stances like this and the OP’s link are reasons why there’s a ground swelling in the US for withdrawing from the UN.

            • Natanael
              link
              fedilink
              English
              4
              edit-2
              14 days ago

              No they just have oppositional defiance disorder. Not recognizing that protecting every individual also means working against prejudiced hate means you’re going to fail every time.

    • poVoq
      link
      fedilink
      English
      5
      edit-2
      15 days ago

      Censorship means that some higher authority wants some information not to be seen by certain people. The target of censorship is therefore the readers/listeners and not primarily the person writing/speaking. Hence if the readers/listeners don’t actually want to read/hear the hateful drivel that some person shouts into the void, removing it isn’t censorship but content curation.

      • @wosat
        link
        English
        415 days ago

        And what if 50% of people want to read what you consider hateful drivel?

        • poVoq
          link
          fedilink
          English
          715 days ago

          They can go somewhere else and talk to each other there.

          • sunzu2
            link
            fedilink
            015 days ago

            Also block the source of speech.

            But they don’t care to block, the goal is to suppress the speech.

            • @atrielienz
              link
              English
              314 days ago

              The problem with blocking is this. It’s not a communally accepted part of any website. Here’s what I mean by that. Lots of websites say they allow you to block people. What they mean is they allow you to mute people. This can mean something as simple as you can still see their posts but you can’t interact (but they can see and interact with your posts (upvote/downvote etc), but can’t talk to you. That’s problematic. I feel like a block should mean block. I. E. The web host or platform completely isolated you from one another so that it appears on the user side of things as if you never existed. But that’s problematic too. On Lemmy, if I block someone I lose all post history related to that section of the post where the interaction took place. I can’t go back to my own comments. I cannot see my own comments.

              Then there’s the problem of block or mute lists having a finite number. If you have a ten year old account somewhere and you have been muting or blocking people for all ten of those years, eventually you will run out of available space on the block list and there’s no good way to purge the list. You very often can’t back it up, can’t auto purge accounts that are dead or no longer in use, can’t even generally see if the people you blocked are still active in a way that insulates and protects you.

              If the goal is to suppress speech that implies that the person/entity doing the suppression is in a position of authority and not following the will of their constituency. So if a mod gets hundreds of reports about a post or comment, some action is warranted because the community is speaking out against it.

              That’s important to what we’re talking about here.

    • Ulrich
      link
      fedilink
      English
      115 days ago

      It’s only censorship if it’s something I personally agree with.