Hexbearians are pissed at Fedia and PieFed for the audacity of not wanting to deal with them LMAO
Excuse me while I go donate even more money to PieFed
You're viewing a single thread.
I told everyone back in the early 2000's that the internet was a wide open propaganda hole.
They were like "What's wrong with the internet? It's just Homestarrunner and Newgrounds".
I tried telling them that this was the future of news, of information, this is where everyone was going to get their worldview from, but unlike newspapers and TV stations, nobody has control over it.
China was right about one thing - the great firewall. Gotta build big walls when you have bad neighbours.
You had me in the first half, NGL.
There is never any excuse for censorship, ever. Full stop. End of debate.
What about the guy saying "I can sell you magic beans to cure cancer", can we censor him? Can we find some common ground here?
Fraud is already against the law and doesn't require censorship.
The law is censoring fraud.
Fraud is theft through deception. It's the theft that is criminalized, not the deception.
No I'm pretty sure "I can give you these magic beans that will cure your cancer for free" is also illegal and censored.
It feels like you just don't consider these things censorship because they're not controversial and almost everyone agrees they should be censored.
I can give you these magic beans that will cure cancer for free
A lot of folks think their decentralized internet forum of choice should be a free for all, but that's not realistic.
Moderation and censorship are easy to get confused. Moderation includes reviewing content and sources for quality and safety, while censorship aims to control or manipulate a narrative. (general words taken from this page)
A PieFed instance defederating from a historically nasty fediverse server or 12 is just a form of moderation, and is up to whoever runs the server. The reason for blocking hexbear/lemmy.ml/lemmygrad could just be to cut down on the amount of manual moderation that's required by having their stuff federate to your server -- not trying to control a narrative or suppress any opinions -- just historically lots of wrong, inaccurate, inflammatory stuff that adds to a moderator's workload. Easier to avoid it.
Lemmy.ml removing comments and banning people for having opinions that differ from theirs is censorship, because 1) they are very consistent about it and 2) it drives their narrative.
Moderation includes reviewing content and sources for quality and safety, while censorship aims to control or manipulate a narrative. (general words taken from this page)
Ehh that sounds like "I'm not punishing I'm disciplining" wordplay.
The wikipedia article on censorship lists a lot of forms of what we consider just plain moderation, like banning hate speech or harmful content:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
It's not just the manipulation of a political narrative or the malicious suppression of opinions. Sometimes censorship is good.
Then you're causing harm to someone through deception, the harm is what's criminalized. You can lie to people all day, but if you use deception to steal money directly, physically harm someone, or otherwise cause monetary loss, that's when criminal (or civil) cases can be brought.
If I say snickers has no peanuts and you think peanuts are icky, nobody is going to jail. If I say snickers has no peanuts and you are deathly allergic, I may. The lie itself isn't illegal, if it was, I expect my door kicked in here shortly: Snickers contains no peanuts.
Well, my door is still intact and no criminal charges have been filed.
If lying counted as fraud, literally every politician (as well as every other human) would be in jail currently.
Right, so you and the person doing the censoring just disagree on what's harmful.
That'd be what the lawyers would argue about in court. What's more, proving intent to defraud is required and can be difficult.
But what I'm saying is that the reason fraud is illegal is the result of the speech, not the speech itself. If the speech causes no harm (or loss yadda yadda), it's not actionable, be it lies or truth.
Sure... But only if you redefine what "censorship" is. 🤦♂️
No redefinition necessary. A lot of people consider removal of hate speech to be censorship.
"A lot of people consider something that isn't censorship as censhorship."
Yes, that's why I said it only means what you and many others think it means if you redefine what it is.
But why? If people are going to be stupid enough to believe such a guy, that's on them. Censoring someone just because they're stupid is a slippery slope. Eventually it leads to the government censoring entire websites that they don't agree with. Just look at what happened with China and their Great Firewall.
The problem with China is that they're not a democracy. So they're censoring entire websites that one guy doesn't agree with.
Here in Canada we censor websites for hate speech, for example, because that's what we voted for.
Winnie the poo moment