al jazeera is a wholy qatari owned propoganda mouthpiece for ismalic jihadis
… yea lol what?
Al Jazeera is Qatari, and so I don’t go to them for content about Qatar in case there’s a bias. However it’s a pretty large organization and they do decent investigative work on stuff happening in South America, Africa, & Asia. New organizations pick topics they think the readers want to see, and so in Canada (and likely the US) there’s usually little to no coverage on stuff in these parts of the world. Al Jazeera puts out decent investigative pieces and documentaries about these places.
TLDR: Al Jazeera isn’t unbiased, and I avoid them on certain topics. However I DO go to them for other stuff. It’s definitely not a “mouthpiece for ismalic jihadis [sic]”
What happened in this article is a bad thing:
had his Facebook profile deleted by Meta 24 hours after the programme Tip of the Iceberg aired an investigation into Meta’s censorship of Palestinian content
The problem with deplatforming people is eventually your group is going to be the out group, and it’s going to get deplatformed. Either we have freedom of expression for everybody or for nobody.
It’s perfectly fine to deplatform selectively anyone who is trying to threaten, intimidate, harass others. You don’t automatically get freedom of speech if you don’t follow society’s rules of coexistence between groups.
Lemmy and distributed systems like it are designed to prevent any one group to get deplatformed.
If a group of people are breaking laws, judges should sanction them. It shouldn’t be up to corporations to remove their voice. If any one group can remove the voice of another group, no matter how righteously, without legal due process then we are just having a popularity contest.
In this case in particular, depends whether he broke their terms of service, which is by itself more arbitrary than the law :/ I don’t think the guy did, so maybe he can win in court :)
By the way, if you break the rules in your instance, you gettin’ banned, so Lemmy is the same. The cool thing about it is that the rules vary from instance to instance and you should know what they are before you federate with them or open an account there.
As long as nothing illegal was written there, in my opinion, yes. But something against echo chambers should be done, I agree. But again, with banning them you encourage more echo chambers since there is no one thinking different than them in does dark not regulated chambers where they will flee to and find each other again.
Hope that makes sense for you, generally problems don’t disappear by hiding symptoms, they just get out of sight anf come back worse than they where.
I think, a better choice would be to invest in more (and better) education instead of ways to censor people.
It was ok when neonazis had no wide-ranging platform to organise in and were marginalized so they didn’t have a way to consolidate into a community that makes them feel supported enough to do anything stupid because they were so fragmented. It was a good way to keep them under control without harsher measures.
Why is that good?
… yea lol what?
Al Jazeera is Qatari, and so I don’t go to them for content about Qatar in case there’s a bias. However it’s a pretty large organization and they do decent investigative work on stuff happening in South America, Africa, & Asia. New organizations pick topics they think the readers want to see, and so in Canada (and likely the US) there’s usually little to no coverage on stuff in these parts of the world. Al Jazeera puts out decent investigative pieces and documentaries about these places.
TLDR: Al Jazeera isn’t unbiased, and I avoid them on certain topics. However I DO go to them for other stuff. It’s definitely not a “mouthpiece for ismalic jihadis [sic]”
What happened in this article is a bad thing:
Removed by mod
al jazeera is a wholy qatari owned propoganda mouthpiece for ismalic jihadis
If that’s such a problem, why’d they wait until this particular piece to deplatform and even then only the presenter’s profile?
While that is true, silencing journalists sets a very bad precedent
Removed by mod
Let the arseholes bring their ideas into the light, so we know who they are and what they think.
Suppression is just a bad idea, and your naivete is terrifying.
The problem with deplatforming people is eventually your group is going to be the out group, and it’s going to get deplatformed. Either we have freedom of expression for everybody or for nobody.
It’s perfectly fine to deplatform selectively anyone who is trying to threaten, intimidate, harass others. You don’t automatically get freedom of speech if you don’t follow society’s rules of coexistence between groups.
Lemmy and distributed systems like it are designed to prevent any one group to get deplatformed.
If a group of people are breaking laws, judges should sanction them. It shouldn’t be up to corporations to remove their voice. If any one group can remove the voice of another group, no matter how righteously, without legal due process then we are just having a popularity contest.
In this case in particular, depends whether he broke their terms of service, which is by itself more arbitrary than the law :/ I don’t think the guy did, so maybe he can win in court :)
By the way, if you break the rules in your instance, you gettin’ banned, so Lemmy is the same. The cool thing about it is that the rules vary from instance to instance and you should know what they are before you federate with them or open an account there.
If we deplatform whole communities, they will meet in the dark and we have no way to see who is a shady mf
So should reddit have left subreddit a like r/The_Donald up?
As long as nothing illegal was written there, in my opinion, yes. But something against echo chambers should be done, I agree. But again, with banning them you encourage more echo chambers since there is no one thinking different than them in does dark not regulated chambers where they will flee to and find each other again. Hope that makes sense for you, generally problems don’t disappear by hiding symptoms, they just get out of sight anf come back worse than they where. I think, a better choice would be to invest in more (and better) education instead of ways to censor people.
I agree completely, I was just wondering if you applied it to situations like that
It was ok when neonazis had no wide-ranging platform to organise in and were marginalized so they didn’t have a way to consolidate into a community that makes them feel supported enough to do anything stupid because they were so fragmented. It was a good way to keep them under control without harsher measures.