The moved their jurisdiction to the Netherlands? In the EU? Wow. Now the GDPR can be used to really kick their butts.
GDPR applies regardless of where headquarters are located
Yes, but it’s easier to enforce EU regulations when the headquarters happens to be within the EU.
Why does anyone still use reddit? Why does anyone still use Twitter? Why does anyone still use Instagram?
Overall, because Lemmy is slow and boring mostly. I see headlines here and go to Reddit for the comments through the geddit crawler.
This is basically asking why anyone would live in or near a city like Los Angeles or New York City when Minot exists and has everything you could possibly need.
If you had to look up where Minot even is, you’ve proven my point.
Say what you will about whether living near the proverbial big city is worth it or not. But it cannot be denied, there is a world of experiences on offer at larger platforms that a smaller platform simply cannot provide. Network effect can be a cruel mistress.
You don’t know why someone would use a social link aggregator… and you’re lamenting about this on a social link aggregator.
Why are you here?
Almost like they asked about a specific site and not the concept of link aggregators or something
Almost
It was still a brain-dead question, even for a rhetorical one.
I use it for porn still
A lot of stuff ONLY has viable Q&A discussion there…
As much as I love the idea of Lemmy, try finding active communities here for: MAME or any other videogame emulation… Plex… The breed of your family dog/cat… Most any sort of non-Fedi-focused brand/podcast/personality…
Yes, I can create a new community. Then I just sit in it by myself, and occasionally deal with spam.
Yeah, Reddit is not the ghost town I thought it would be after the mass exodus.
I don’t get why more people didn’t move to Lemmy or mbin
Inertia is a bitch. That’s why.
reddit has half functioning search.
Find me easier to access niche communities and I’ll be gone from reddit. I hoped Lemmy would blow up. Instead, reddit just shrank.
Find me easier to access niche communities
Have fun trying to discuss anything that isn’t about linux, american politics or reddit/amazon/elon bad!!. Lemmy is just a decentralized circle jerk.
Well i guess we should have seen it coming right. The people pissed enough with Reddit to leave were most likely to be technology proficient users and bourgeois hating leftists
Forgot people whose only opinion is hating the website they’re on.
I do not hate the concept of lemmy and the fediverse, But I’m also not going to pretend that lemmy at its current state isn’t a circle jerk. Lemmy needs more diverse groups of people. Like GrammerPolice said above, most people who migrated from reddit were people with very strong stance on their opinions. And there’s intense hostility to anything that is even slightly against what they believe in.
Fuck Spez
Absolutely fuck spez.
But he’s right here. Just because he’s a fuckstick doesn’t mean he’s always wrong on every issue 100% of the time.
Various forms of censorship under the flag of ‘online safety’ have been pushed by governments since the internet began to exist. And before that with print media and television. Censorship is not the answer. Never was. First it was for porn, then it was for video games, then it was for hate speech, it’s always something.
But in the words of Captain Jean-Luc Picard,
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.”
Censorship must be opposed.
I think reducing the visibility of some kinds of content can be good, especially for those under 18. E.g. when it comes to content around suicide, I think it is better if children/teenagers see “there is support for you, please speak to a charity for free on this phone number” instead of pro-suicide content.
That I would actually very much agree with. As Elon himself said in the early days of the Twitter takeover, “free speech does not mean free reach”.
This is also why I think engagement algorithms are a cancer on our civilization. If it is in a platforms monetary interest to amplify the most vile anger inducing stuff, be that stuff that is actively bad like hate speech or simply divisive like a lot of political crap, that is bad for our society. It pushes us farther apart when we should be coming together to fix the problems that we can agree on.
As Elon himself said in the early days of the Twitter takeover, “free speech does not mean free reach”.
I understood that to mean “I want to claim I’m a ‘free speech absolutist’ while actually only promoting things I agree with”
In concept I agree with him on that. I support your right to say awful shit, but I am not going to spread that message to others. Where Elon lost the plot was thinking of Twitter as a public square. It’s a nice thought, but it requires the whole platform to be 100% neutral and unbiased. So it’s all good to call Twitter the public square, but that’s a lot harder to take seriously when the guy in charge of policing the square is heavily biased.
it’s all good to call Twitter the public square, but that’s a lot harder to take seriously when the guy in charge of policing the square is heavily biased
I agree. A public town square is good but like you say, it should be neutral, and Xitter is not that.
On the censorship thing, maybe it is okay if an online messaging website bans certain content, like pro-suicide content, or pro-terrorism content, etc. You could call that censorship but you could also call it safety. I don’t think anybody really believes in 100% free speech anyway, because if a person shouts “FIRE!” in a crowded theatre, when there is actually no fire, and it causes a stampede which kills people, should we not punish their speech because they’re free to say it?
Freedom of political speech is important, but maybe there should be some fundamental rules about certain types of speech.
On the censorship thing, maybe it is okay if an online messaging website bans certain content, like pro-suicide content, or pro-terrorism content, etc. You could call that censorship but you could also call it safety.
I think that should go either way and I have no problem if a platform decides to ban that kind of stuff. I certainly have no desire to consume such material.
I have a BIG problem when the government decides that platforms are required to ban things. Even if they’re things I don’t myself want to read.
It’s a slippery slope.
I disagree since I think censorship can be desired when combatting hate speech. Maybe we just disagree how exactly we use the word ‘censorship’.
No, the community needs to cyber bully them off the platform. They need to feel rejection for their words, not censorship. Censorship lets them frame themselves as the victim as they seek out a smaller echo chamber on the fringes. They need to learn their words will turn the community against them
We still have to live with them. We can’t ignore them or silence them - we have to correct them
And what would happen when the community itself is built on hatred and welcomes hate wholeheartedly?
What do you mean? It works the same way, the opinion of the community will pull you closer to the group consensus. Too much exposure will have horrible things you don’t really believe spilling out of your mouth
Don’t go there, don’t spread word about it, don’t feed it in any way. It’s like flood water - pull others out of it if you can, but minimize your exposure
As to shutting them down if you have the ability? Shutting down a cesspool is good - it fragments the echo chamber, and some members won’t make the migration. The only question is if I trust the one making that decision to remain impartial
Yeah, trusting someone to make right decisions is hard because this trust usually ends up being betrayed sooner or later.
Regarding the first part, I meant that we as a community can’t put enough pressure on a bully to make em leave, if that bully is part of the community that supports em.
Ah, but that’s the beauty of it. Why are they here? If it’s to troll, don’t give them what they want. If it’s for social interaction… Why are they venturing out of their echo chamber?
Every interaction with a community pulls you slightly closer to the group consensus. You can fight it to some extent, but we’re wired to fit in with the tribe
Social rejection is wired similar to pain in our brains - it’s far more salient, far more memorable and impactful, than normal interactions.
The highest form of this is rejection by the community - it hurts most when everyone’s attention is on you and they all reject you. Even a single person quietly reaching out afterwards is like a lifeline - it stands out to you. It takes hundreds or thousands of “normal” interactions to counteract one extreme negative one
A supportive community back home doesn’t counteract the impacts from an away game. Don’t go to their turf, let them come to ours. Do not feed them - we have better content, they’ll lose members to us, and if we do it right they’ll shrink until their echo chambers can no longer sustain themselves
You are addressing the wrong problem. You’re focusing on the symptom rather than the disease.
Fighting hate speech rather than hatred itself only strengthens the hatred. As soon as you say “you mustn’t say that” you validate the hatred and give it power. Look at any counterculture, positive or negative. Trying to suppress it only validates it, gives it legitimacy as being important enough for the establishment to want to suppress, and if the people who might support the hatred already don’t like the people who would suppress the hate speech, you’ve just poured fuel on the fire.
The problem to be fixed isn’t hate speech, it’s hatred. It’s a tougher problem to solve, but a much more important one that you will actually get a productive effect by solving it.
You make a good point. Hate must be addressed at its root.
I see hate speech censorship as important for protecting the victims/vulnerable. How can we protect these people without this censorship?
Do you have any favourite examples of how a society can fight hatred?
how can we protect people without this censorship?
We don’t, nor should we try to.
Protecting people’s feelings from offense is not a valid activity in a free society. The second you start down the road of ‘we must regulate this guy’s words and actions to protect that guy’s feelings’ we become a nanny state full of people with paper thin skins. We accept that one consequence of free speech is that sometimes people will say things that are hurtful. We do that because the alternative is getting rid of free speech.Hate must be addressed at its root.
I could not agree more. Fighting hatred with hatred only breeds more hatred. But that seems to be the standard strategy today, it’s okay to not just refuse to tolerate intolerance, but to be actively intolerant of those who themselves seem intolerant. It is just fighting bad with bad and the result is more bad.
The way we fight the roots of hatred is with open discourse. The people who have hate in their hearts, we do not isolate them, we do not wall them off from society, we do not practice and encourage intolerance against them. We show them a better way. We make ourselves examples of doing better, not just against the people they don’t like, but against the people we don’t like.
We try to build bridges and encourage communication. For all the people who say immigrants are lazy lawbreakers, we show them immigrants who are the hardest working motherfuckers there are and pay their taxes. For the people who think black people are a problem, we introduce them to black people who break their stereotypes.
For the overwhelming majority of people who have hate in their hearts and intolerance and prejudice, those feelings are based on stereotypes.
People don’t join the KKK because they start in a mixed culture and then conclude black people are a problem. They join the KKK because they have stereotypes they see reinforced in media and TV.There was a famous Black dude whose name I don’t remember, but he of his own volition managed to deprogram a whole bunch of KKK members. All he did was sit down and fucking talk to them. That’s it. Like sit down at the bar next to them and start a conversation. Many of the KKK members had never encountered a respectable well-spoken black person before (let alone one willing to talk to them) and were completely blown away because it broke the stereotype of a black person that they joined the KKK to fight against.
A good number of them ended up leaving the KKK and giving this man their robes on the way out. So there’s this friendly black dude who has a big box of KKK robes that were given to him by ex-members he deprogrammed.That is how we fight hate. We fight hate with love, we fight intolerance with tolerance and open arms, we fight stereotypes with exposition, we fight ignorance with knowledge.
Otherwise it’s like we are saying there’s too much stupidity in society so we’re going to prevent people with lower IQs from attempting school. It doesn’t work.
There was a famous Black dude whose name I don’t remember, but he of his own volition managed to deprogram a whole bunch of KKK members.
His name is Daryl Davis. For anyone not familiar, he has some great videos about this on Youtube/proxies.
That’s absolutely the one! Truly great American. We could all learn a thing or two from him.
It requires them to restrict certain categories of video, so that users cannot share content on cyberbullying, promoting eating disorders, promotion of self harm or incitement to hatred on a number of grounds.
Yeh, fuck censorship. Let’s all be shitbags and do that stuff instead!
You don’t have to be a porn star or even a porn consumer to oppose laws banning porn.
And you don’t have to be a shitbag to recognize that, while well-intentioned, censorship is still censorship.
I have absolutely no love whatsoever for the people who would spread such crap. I would love to get rid of it. But banning the speech doesn’t do that. It’s like smashing the altimeter in the airplane and then declaring that you’re not crashing anymore. But the reality is, smashing instruments in the airplane is never a great idea whether you are crashing or not. It just prevents you from seeing things you don’t want to. And you get hurt in the process.
Censorship, historically, has never ended up anywhere good.
Porn is performed by consenting adults and consumed by consenting adults.
That’s why porn made from human trafficking, revenge porn (ie leaking nudes of an ex) etc are illegal in most sane countries.
The idea being that porn doesn’t hurt anyone.Hate speech is harmful. It’s purpose is to hurt people.
So yeh, it should be illegal.
I have no issues discussing hate speech. I do have issues with hate speech being used.There’s a big difference between hate speech and revenge porn.
A person has rights to their likeness and image. That’s why anybody who goes in front of a camera, be it a porn star or a model or an actor, signs a ‘model release’ giving the photographer authorization to publicize and sell their images. Without that simple one page contract, nothing in the photo shoot can be published. Porn actors do that. And in fact, they usually do it on video, where the actor holds up their driver’s license and says ‘my name is blah blah I am a pornographic actor and I am consenting to have sex on camera today and authorize this production company to publicize and sell the resulting video’ or something like that. Revenge porn victims have made no such agreement, and while the penalties are stronger because of the harm it causes them, the legal basis for having any penalty at all is simply that they did not consent to having their likeness and image publicized.
Hate speech has no such issue. It may be harmful to a person or group, but if you remove the very broad ‘hatred’ label, it becomes just an opinion that would otherwise be protected speech.
The other problem is that what considers hatred is very much subjective. For example, if I say wanting to own a gun is evidence of mental illness, a lot of people on Lemmy will agree with that and I will probably get upvotes. If I say wanting to use the bathroom of other than your biological genetic sex is evidence of mental illness, I will probably get banned. What is the difference between the two? Supporting LGBT rights is popular, supporting the second amendment is not. So you create the situation where the only difference between a valid opinion and an invalid one is whether or not it’s accepted mainstream, and that’s a bad way to go.
Also, in a free country, it is generally considered that expressing an opinion which may be detrimental to others is not in itself considered bad. If I say that people over 80 years old should require a yearly driving test, that’s a valid position for me to have and nobody will call me ageist for saying it. If I say that Donald Trump should be arrested rather than elected, that is directly detrimental to a person but it would get me upvotes here. If I said that being Republican is evidence of mental illness, that is directly prejudicial against an entire group which has many different reasons for believing as they do, and it would probably get me upvotes also.
My point is, hate speech as a concept is difficult to define and when you try to ban it with censorship you are just starting down a slippery slope that will have the opposite of the desired effect. You legitimize the counterculture and do nothing to stop the real problem, the actual hatred.
How about incitements to violence and outright explicit disinformation/misinformation, like:
- [group] should be [violent act]
- [group] are [dehumanizing pejorative] that deserve [violent act]
- [dogwhistle for the actual Nazis, like the 14 words, terminology specifically referencing the Final Solution, etc]
- [hard r] are [extreme dehumanizing pejorative] and don’t deserve [human rights]
- [violent or repulsive act] the [slur]
- “Despite only making up 13%…”
- “Whites create and forget, [slur]s copy and remember…”
For the record, I personally think everything you said is truly repugnant. Although I’d point out the first one I’ve seen applied to Trump voters, frequently, in mainstream discussions on ‘civilized’ platforms, with little or no moderator response. So apparently it’s okay to be prejudiced and discriminatory as long as it’s against someone others don’t like.
That said, my problem is not the banning of these statements. Most platforms quite reasonably would ban such things, and I have no problem with that.
What I have a problem with is the government REQUIRING a platform ban certain speech. I don’t care if it’s the most vile horrible hate filled shit. It should be up to the platform, not the government, to decide what speech is acceptable or not.
Because if government gets to decide what private citizens are allowed to discuss on privately-owned forums, that’s a very slippery slope.
And I still say it’s counterproductive.
He’s such a disgusting greedy little pig boy who frankly belongs in a deep hole where nobody will find him 🙏
Idea: Governments maintain a list of entities that are evading the law like that, and then doesn’t prosecute people who are accused of crimes against such entities. The idea being that if you place yourself outside of the law’s reach, you also place yourself outside of the law’s protection.
That’s a bingo!
We just say bingo…
It requires them to restrict certain categories of video, so that users cannot share content on cyberbullying, promoting eating disorders, promotion of self harm or incitement to hatred on a number of grounds.
Wow, what a horrible, restraining overreach.
I am shedding tears for the 1.2% engagement loss this would cost Reddit next quarter. Imagine what they have to pay devs for filtering abusive videos!
(I hate to sound so salty, but its mind boggling that they would fight this so vehemently, instead of just… filtering abusive content? Which they already do for anything that actually costs them any profit).
I’m a little surprised to hear people so willing to let the government of Ireland determine who they are allowed to hate and for what reasons.
You are making such a useless point that requires minimal effort or thought. It would be better if you actually shared a tangible concern rather than providing a strawman argument meant to cause an irrational fear in people reading your comment.
For example, you could have shared which group of people you want to be a protected class and is not by Irish law; or which group of people is currently a protected class by Irish law and should not be. At least, then, you would have brought up a real concern about how the Irish government is determining hate speech; because right now, all you are doing is fear mongering.
I oppose letting anyone define hate speech as a matter of principle, because even if I agree with the definition completely now, I may not continue to agree with the definition in the future. Look at what has been happening in the USA since the October 7 attack: a lot of people I had considered my political allies turned out to have beliefs I consider to be hateful, and meanwhile these people consider my own beliefs hateful. The solution is not to empower a single central authority to decide which sort of hate is allowed. It is (as it has always been) to maintain the principle of free speech.
How about incitements to violence and outright explicit disinformation/misinformation, like:
- [group] should be [violent act]
- [group] are [dehumanizing pejorative] that deserve [violent act]
- [dogwhistle for the actual Nazis, like the 14 words, terminology specifically referencing the Final Solution, etc]
- [hard r] are [extreme dehumanizing pejorative] and don’t deserve [human rights]
- [violent or repulsive act] the [slur]
- “Despite only making up 13%…”
- “Whites create and forget, [slur]s copy and remember…”
Probably would require them to actually pay moderators! The horror!
Well…the problem is reddit’s size.
I’m not part of reddit anymore because they filtered me out for abusive content.
The content that was so abusive? I told a story on /r/Cleveland about the time 35 years ago I got my bike stolen.
I wasn’t accusing any current reddit user of being the theif. But reddit bots flagged me of being abusive to other users.
We don’t even know if that guy who stole my bike 35 years ago is even still alive, much less an active redditor on /r/Cleveland. So who am I being abusive to, when I say it’s a bad idea to let strangers ride your bike without some kind of assurance you’ll get it back?
Fair. +1
But also, that just sounds like they’re cheaping out on content filtering. And, you know, kinda broke the enthusiastic community moderation that made it great in the first place.
Yes, that’s true. This all happened like 3 weeks after they went public IPO. I didn’t buy it, because I thought reddit had a decent chance of falling on it’s ass on the free market. It’s a 10+ year old company that’s never made a profit. It’s reasonable to assume it might fail.
3 weeks after I declined, and they went public, I suddenly get 3 temporary bans in a week, and the 3rd one was a permanent ban. All by autobots.
Yeah same here, the last post I made was to argue for more disabled access to European historical sites n the r/europe subreddit.
After everything I’ve posted, THAT is what got me banned.
After loosing my appeal, I changed all my prior posts to AI generated gibberish.
Fuck Reddit, salt your posts so they can’t use your content to make money on search or train AI.
I got banned when I told a literal Nazi, that said that literal Jews should die, should drink bleach to purify their genes before they contaminated the genepool.
I still stand by it. my grandfather fucked up Nazis, and I’ll fuck up Nazis too.
