• brucethemoose@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    14 days ago

    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).

    • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      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.

      • reliv3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        14 days ago

        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.

        • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          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.

          • wanderingmagus@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            14 days ago

            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…”
    • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      14 days ago

      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?

      • GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        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.

      • brucethemoose@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        14 days ago

        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.

        • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          14 days ago

          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.

          • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            14 days ago

            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.