• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 day ago

    That depends on who’s doing the moderation. If it’s a government entity, that’s censorship, and the only time I’m willing to accept it is if it’s somehow actively harmful (i.e. terrorist plots and whatnot). If it’s merely disgusting, that’s for private entities to work out, and private entities absolutely have the right to moderate content they host however they choose.

    • comfy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Why is a private entity significantly different from a government entity? If a coalition of private entities (say, facebook, twitter, youtube, … ) controls most of the commons, they have the power to dictate everything beyond the fringes. We can already see this kind of collusion in mass media to the extent that it’s labeled a propaganda model. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

      I just don’t think the private/gov dichotomy is enough to decide when censorship and moderation is valid.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        It’s because of the power imbalance. If a private entity decides LGBT content is inappropriate for kids, you can find something on the fringe because someone will fill that gap. If a government makes the same decision, they can prosecute any service that doesn’t follow the law, which chills smaller services from offering it.

        On the flipside, if a large tech company does it, it affects nearly everyone on the planet, whereas if a government does it, it should only impact people in that country. However, with larger countries, impacts often bleed into other countries (e.g. I see EU cookie banners in the US).

        Likewise, it’s less likely for a government to rescind a bad law, whereas a bad policy can be easily reversed if it hurts profits.

      • tabular@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 hours ago

        The government is supposed to be representing voters’ best interests and have a monopoly on force to enforce rules. We can’t trust anyone to decide for us what speech we can listen to. A government should have no say on restricting speech (sadly, even if that speech does cause harm to people in our LGBT family).

        A business should not have power comparable to a government. You probably have to interact with the government to some degree, you shouldn’t have to interact with a specific business at all.

    • futatorius@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      18 hours ago

      the only time I’m willing to accept it is if it’s somehow actively harmful

      Oh, like the dissemination of propaganda originating from the troll farms of hostile powers? Good idea.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        17 hours ago

        Harmful meaning things like harassment (defined as continued and targeted use of speech intended to harass an individual) or credible threats of violence (i.e. a threat to kill a specific individual, attack an area, etc).

        Harmful doesn’t mean “ideas I don’t like.”