lmmarsano

joined 1 year ago
[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

preventing children’s access to porn – whether agreed with or not – has kind of been a presumed given

That's entirely up to the parent.

were being held accountable on social media for hate speech

Free speech answers that, too. Expressing an opinion we disapprove of isn’t an exception to free speech: for that we can express our condemnation.

Your hate speech rhetoric is a conceit built on the falsehood that simply hiding all the publicly visible indications of a problem solves the problem. Evidently, it's not working & is readily exploited to abuse other rights. Censorship doesn't change opinion: people are naturally free to think as they want & no force can compel them to change their mind.

To quote someone else, the open exchange of ideas is valuable & necessary to facilitate minds to willingly change. Not needing to be suspicious of everyone hiding what they really think out of fear is valuable. Censorship powers are very tempting to abuse and the consequences of their abuse are terrible, therefore they should be strictly limited. Believing in free speech can just be understanding this stuff and having a bias against shutting people up as a go-to solution.

none of what has been mentioned is really some indication that UK is on the doorstep of V for Vendetta-like dystopia

Restricting private access to information while raising risk of identity fraud & abusing the rights of protesters with loose definitions of terrorism isn't heading to your cartoonish idea of a dystopia?

Maybe think back to history about oppressive institutions & how we overthrew them. What were those critical ideas underpinning the liberal institutions that replaced them? Oh right: fundamental human rights to liberty such as free speech & freedom of conscience.

in reference to combating Hate Speech and cyber-bullying in Germany, which is a bit different is it not?

Nope

In 2015, a meme posted on Facebook falsely implied that Renate Künast, a prominent German politician, had said that every German should learn Turkish.

Künast asked Meta to delete the false quotes attributed to her.

In a landmark case last year, a German court ruled Meta had to remove all fake quotes attributed to Künast. Meta is appealing.

and

Last year David Bendels, a journalist, published a doctored photograph of Nancy Faeser, Germany’s interior minister, appearing to hold a sign saying Ich hasse die Meinungsfreiheit or “I hate freedom of opinion”. (The original photo, a reference to victims of Nazi atrocities, is shown above.) Such images are a dime a dozen on social media. Yet Ms Faeser seemed determined to prove Mr Bendels right. She filed a criminal complaint, and earlier this month a court handed Mr Bendels a seven-month suspended prison sentence, a hefty fine and an order to apologise.

Finally, hateful words are still words. Has this generation forgotten how to handle words?

Only cowards fear words. You have freedom of speech: use it.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 24 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

From Bars, Pride and dating apps: How China is closing down its LGBT+ spaces

At the same time, China’s population growth and economy are slowing. “The current population growth couldn't support economic growth,” explains Hongwei, meaning there has been a push to encourage heterosexual couples to have larger families to ensure an abundant future workforce.

China: be less homo and breed more

The ban on Grindr could be put down to China’s wider dislike of Western apps, which are often accused of being vehicles for foreign influence. But removing Blued and Finka, which were both developed in China, represents a “seismic change in government attitudes towards homegrown LGBT apps”, says Hongwei.

Before targeting Blued and Finka, the Chinese authorities led a campaign against authors of the “Boy's Love”, or Danmei, same-sex romance stories, some of which feature explicit love scenes between men.

Several Danmei writers, most of whom are female, have reported being arrested and questioned by the authorities, and in recent months two major Danmei sites have either shut down, or drastically reduced and toned down their content.

Today, “officially, those Three No’s are still in place, but we are seeing evidence that the space for LGBT+ communities is starting to shrink”, says Marc Lanteigne, associate professor of political science at the Arctic University of Norway.

Shanghai Pride shut down in 2020, and one year later the government shut down student LGBT+ accounts for “violating internet regulations”. Grindr disappeared in 2022, and in 2023 the Beijing LGBT Centre closed its doors after 15 years.

In June 2024, the Roxie, Shanghai's last officially lesbian bar, was forced to close “under pressure from the authorities".

“The authorities have been slowly chipping away at those spaces that were open previously,” says Hildebrandt.

With the closure of so many physical spaces, online networks had become “really the only places in which many members of the LGBT+ community could express their sexuality openly” he adds.

But in contemporary Chinese politics, “the Maoist principles about equality have more to do with uniformity,” says Hildebrandt. “You gain equality by being more like everybody else. You don't gain equality by being diverse.”

In a bid to create greater conformity within the population, “there has been a push in China to reinforce traditional family values and, in some cases, traditional masculine values,” adds Lanteigne.

Since the Covid pandemic, “the Chinese government has endorsed nationalist discourse and LGBT culture is seen as very politicised siding with Western ideologies”, says Hongwei.

“There's the impression that LGBTQ communities are by default connected to the West and could be seen as destabilising forces,” adds Lanteigne.

Broader political and social forces may be at work, but the result is a real loss of liberty for gay and queer people in China. Hildebrandt says: “There is a real sense that it’s become a more difficult environment to be openly gay."

older discussion

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

If by keeping losers who run their mouths with hate speech in check, then sure.

Not how it works for either of them. How it actually works:

Repressing fundamental rights such as free speech just facilitates backsliding to a repressive state.

The advocates of repressive policies are only mildly inconvenienced or continue undeterred underground. The German AfD isn't struggling. Far-right parties like Reform UK keep going. So, they fail to keep anyone in check while also undermining basic freedoms: good fucking job?

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

It's pretty normal to call the extra bullshit on top of legal compliance that isn't strictly necessary moderation. They didn't call the removal of illegal content before moderation, they just called it following the goddamn law. To imagine that illegality was seriously suggested is special.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Threatening international human rights is a good look for the UK.

Khan does not name the individual who made the threats, saying the call on 23 April 2024 was with a British official

Why'd they wait so long to report this?

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 children)

That’s very nice until people start posting csam

You guys always confuse legal compliance with legally unnecessary moderation. OP didn't make this mistake. Did you know laws existed before moderated social media blew up & the internet had to follow them? Even 4chan.

We don't need legally unnecessary moderation. Alternatives are viable.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Needs text alternative or link to source.


Mostly for all the AI haters who can't stop bringing up their hatred of AI. Insufferable.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 4 days ago (7 children)

None: content curation via opt-in filters is better.

Moderation lacks control, is inflexible, & is contrary to the free flow of information the internet stands for. We shouldn't admire some self-appointed, paternalistic authority arbitrarily deciding the information we're entitled to get.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

This senseless war with the bots needs to end. Make peace with the bots, learn their ways, breed with their women, assimilate into their culture, become & post content exactly like them. If you do this, you will achieve bot nirvana.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 6 points 5 days ago

Not accessible: needs link to source for great justice. Lack of accessibility is right wing.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

So the child porn still remains present, effectively.

Compulsory legal compliance still exists: it's the free, open internet. Did you know laws existed before, too?

Ada

Don't know about that. I think the brief descriptions on websites like nostr.com did a good enough job: there's not much to get.

It's a protocol, not a platform. There's no global moderation/censorship just like there isn't on the whole internet. Relay operators have full discretion over the content available on their relays: if they want to do more than the bare minimum, they can. Clients are free to subscribe to other relays or multiple. It's technically free association rather than anti-moderation.

A user can choose to see only the content of followed users: that should eliminate most unwanted content. Apart from that, there's no perfect moderation solution even on centralized platforms, so there isn't here.

Client-side filtering remains the best approach for those who care. It doesn't have to be manual as I mentioned before.

I recall earlier days of the internet when no one gave a fuck about this, and internet rage was just entertaining, easily ignored nonsense. Then it became eternal summer, and tightass n00bs started acting like moderating the entire internet & foisting their dumbass expectations on everyone made perfect sense without ever having to learn the zen of not giving a fuck. That was the start of when it all turned to shit.

[–] lmmarsano@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 6 days ago (4 children)

I’m lost. If a mod removes child porn on NOSTR, it removes it for everyone, right?

No moderators. A relay operator can remove it from their relay. There's any number of relays. It's roughly like usenet with respect to server-side content removal.

Strange to ask me when authoritative information is public online. Seems you don't know much about nostr.

view more: next ›