| ▲ | vrganj an hour ago | ||||||||||||||||
I think the censorship framing is quite manipulative. It is removal of unlawful content. Is removing CSAM censorship? What about snuff? If no, then where do you draw the line? Why can't our democratically elected governments decide what is and isn't lawful? Why should foreign Big Capital be allowed to decide instead? | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | dragonwriter an hour ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Restricting the distribution of any material on content-based criteria by persons other than sender or intended receiver is censorship. Whether it is desirable censorship or not is generally a separate issue from whether or not it is censorship, unless, for example, you have previously adopted a rule that the particular actor committing the censorship shall not engage in censorship at all, in which case they are, of course, inherently the same question. (Where this gets hairy is when one likes to pretend that one has such a rule for a particular actor, but actually really would prefer that actor to censor certain things, which sometimes occurs with modern liberal democratic regimes, and especially frequently occurs with a particular North American one which has what superficially looks like a very strong restriction in that area in its Constitution.) | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | Pragmata 19 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||
>I think the censorship framing is quite manipulative. It is removal of unlawful content. Yeah, that's called censorship. It's exactly the same thing everyone you accuse of censorship does. There is exactly zero difference beyond your support of the views/people being censored (and sometimes not even that). >Is removing CSAM censorship? What about snuff? Yes. Yes. >If no, then where do you draw the line? Why can't our democratically elected governments decide what is and isn't lawful? Why should foreign Big Capital be allowed to decide instead? Well in my country that line has been drawn. It's just recurring and persistently ignored by the state, the justice system, and private entities. When a constitution says explicitly "no type or form of censorship is permitted", that's pretty clear what it means. You ignoring it doesn't make that line less clear. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | like_any_other 33 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Nice motte-and-bailey. Removing CSAM is good, therefore so is removing “we need to take back our country”: @JudiciaryGOP has been investigating European censorship since the EU tried to silence President Trump last August. In February, we subpoenaed tech companies for their communications with foreign censors in Europe and around the world. Today, we’re releasing a report with preliminary findings about the EU’s censorship regime. The EU’s censorship law, the Digital Services Act (DSA), requires platforms to censor so-called “misinformation” and “hate speech,” even when the content “is not illegal.” New documents obtained by the Committee show that European regulators distort these terms to require censorship of legitimate political discourse that is neither harmful nor illegal. In May, the EU hosted a DSA-focused “workshop” where platforms were asked to consider hypothetical “scenarios” involving hate speech online. Unlike other EU “workshops” with tech, the public was NOT allowed to watch this one. And the EU told the platforms to NOT share the “scenarios” with the public. What were they trying to hide? Turns out, the EU wanted to hide what it defines as “illegal hate speech” that must be censored: tweeting ordinary political rhetoric like “we need to take back our country.” https://x.com/jim_jordan/status/1948730617803296910 https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-j... | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||