471–480 of 996 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Big Tech censorship Pretty much all the subs like the the_donald, republicans, conservative, asktrumpsupporters that are against the big tech censorship will censor (ban) you for just showing their hypocrisy. I clicked on few links or r/RedditAlternatives, and they look like Facebook pages of rural Ohio.
But they can't (and shouldn't be able to, even while I agree, they would want to) ban you from starting your own subreddit with your own rules.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. The real story is federated applications undermine their search monopoly.
I really doubt google cares about federated applications at all. I suspect they're just trying to avoid a potential future shitstorm where they're accused of facilitating something nasty because they "approved" apps to be on the play store.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a clever trick. Make the medium you want to censor a private property than it's legal.
not really. it's just saying "this is mine, it's not public property or a public service, and thus i get to manage it how i want." I think MOST people would agree that that's a reasonable approach. just because a lot of people rely on the google play store doesn't mean it's a public service in the legal sense. It's a very private piece of software that is NOT open source and is very obviously owned and managed by a s…
If they have shown the ability to control speech on their platforms section 230 should be repealed and Google etc should be responsible for the content on their property like any other publisher.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's actually very disturbing considering the amount of misinformation over this incident, and that they're charging that kid for murder! Were you able to find the videos? They tell a pretty different story than the media narrative. Every person he shoots attacked him or had a gun. He doesn't shoot the kid behind them who had his hands up, or any other bystanders. He then walks with his hands up and turns himself i…
It sounds a lot like you are deliberately seeking bias-confirming right wing propaganda!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
An electricity company is a utility however. They're a natural monopoly in a way that a "website" can't be If [large social media platform] doesn't want that kind of content, it's not unreasonable to simply make one to soak up that "ignored" market segment. Reddit can't shut you down for hosting your own internet forum for instance
Interestingly, L.A.’s mayor has threatened as well as executed water service disruption to people hosting large parties. I get why one might want to do that, but I don’t think it’s the right precedent to set.
It always starts like that. People agree to very sensible things. Like hate speech is bad and it’s not censorship if it’s not mandated by the government. Eventually the definition of hate or whatever it is that’s offensive is very removed from the original meaning, and now we all bear the brunt of the sensible people who with best intentions wanted to make things better.
Yes, Google and Apple are big. You can say well, it’s different because in this world there’s only two boards for the entire country, that’s true! But it’s not a censorship problem, it’s an antitrust problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This definition of censorship is bad and must be changed. Large general-purpose platforms should be forced do distribute all content which is not otherwise illegal, and only perform removal based through the standard legal system.
Why should they be forced to distribute it? That's a pretty extreme stance, and you haven't provided a reason.
As it stands now they get zero liability for speech they can clearly police. I see hate groups in Facebook that Facebook doesn't close if reported. Let them own it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When your content is too cancerous for Reddit ...maybe the issue isn't Reddit.
Yes, if the only defense of your content is that it isn't literally illegal to produce and distribute, maybe choose something better to do with your time.
I can think of no faster way to stifle innovation, research, and the human spirit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To be fully accurate, this is absolutely censorship, but it's not a violation of anyone's First Amendment rights. People often conflate the two. It's not censorship, its moderation and editorial discretion.
Great. Google should become liable for all the illegal content that slips through, all the way to the officers and directors of the company. I think we as the society agree that child porn and child sexual abuse is a criminally punishable offense. A platform in a possession of it clearly is in a possession and distribution of child pornography, hence officers and directors should be charged under those statues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, I can tell you what's bugging me personally about this. There's a growing divide in our society between the "equal opportunity" and "equal outcome" camps. And while the "equal opportunity" people mostly have the "just let me grill" attitude, "equal outcomers" are pushing increasingly harder, while doing their best to silence any opposing voices. It's now getting to a point where raising one's kids to be proud o…
[flagged]