this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2023
264 points (96.5% liked)

Technology

58092 readers
2941 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemm.ee
fry@fry.gs
L3s@fry.gs
enu@lemmy.world
L4s@fry.gs
L4s@lemmy.world
264
It's not just about facts: Democrats and Republicans have sharply different attitudes about removing misinformation from social media (theconversation.com)
submitted 10 months ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world
98 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

It's not just about facts: Democrats and Republicans have sharply different attitudes about removing misinformation from social media::One person’s content moderation is another’s censorship when it comes to Democrats’ and Republicans’ views on handling misinformation.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

bad faith argument that companies are allowed to do this because they're allowed to do it.

So let's get this straight, it's "bad faith" to point out facts but "good faith" to support bigotry and hatred like you're "accidentally" doing with your argument?

[–] Lith@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It's bad faith to argue that companies should be allowed to do things because they're already allowed to do those things. I see a little bit of that creeping in even here with the concept of "rights", as if corporations were humans. Laws can change.

It's good faith to ask if companies have too much power over what has become our default mode of communication. It's also good faith to challenge this question with non-circular logic.

Your assumption that I'm defending racism and bigotry is exactly why I think this stuff is important. You've implied I'm an insidious alt-rightist trying to dog whistle, and now I'm terrified of getting banned or otherwise censored. I'm interested in expressing myself. I do not want to express bigotry. But if one person decides what I said is even linked to bigotry, suddenly I'm a target, and I can lose a decades-old social account and all of its connections. And if that happens I just have to accept it because it's currently legal. It's so fucking stressful to say anything online anymore.