this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2025
1257 points (97.5% liked)
Technology
61024 readers
3721 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Here on Lemmy, people who claim to advocate for freedom of speech and information, demanding for information shared on social networks to be controlled, shutdown and people to be censored based on unknown and ambiguous criteria, without even understanding the implications of it.
Details at six
Not to worry, you're simply confusing freedom of speech with obliging private actors to consume content they don't want to consume or disagree with. The first is a fundemental principle of democratic legal systems and recognized as a perempotry norm under international law. The second is authoritarianism.
There's a growing number of legally illiterate people who think freedom of speech is absolute and even affords one the right to oblige others consume their speech through the government. That is fundamentally wrong and a complete misunderstanding of how these key principles of freedom work and have always worked in modern democratic systems.
Newsflash - freedom of speech is not absolute. Never has been. There are very specific, explicitly codified limitations. Why? Because words are the most powerful weapons and can be used to target and threaten the freedoms of other people, including their freedom to life. Which is why rights and obligations are always balanced against each other, following the principle of proportionality.
If you feel so strongly about not being able force others to consume content they don't want to consume, then I have bad news for you - you are opposing democracy. But it seems like you, and many other like you, are just confused, rather than actively promoting anti-democratic standpoints. The truly sad part? The impact is the same regardless of intent.
Edit: Want to know more? Details at 6.
It's so typical to see 90% good argument and 10% insult the OP & half the country. If believers stuck to the 90% good argument and left out the insults you'd win a lot of followers.
I don't want any followers or believers. Calling it as I see it. That is all.
The sky is blue and I think OP is a moron. The second part doesn't make the first untrue, it also doesn't make it an ad hominem argument.
Half the voters(not country) are a bunch of gullible clowns and calling them out is just an observation.