Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, and? You think those things shouldn't' be available?
If someone does police work on those things, should that information not be available to the public as it inform the public?
You are basically claiming some forms of knowledge are too dangerous for people to know. Also, as soon as you start dictating what is 'misinformation' you are creating the problem where knowledge and truth are defined by a central authority, which comes with it's own systematic problems. The people in power of these censorship could easily decide that anti-Nazi rhetoric is misinformation as much as they could decide that Nazi-rehtoric is.
There is no free lunch. Information is free and it's dangerous, or it's suppressed, and that's dangerous as well.
I am a former teacher and academic. I taught philosophy, and plenty of people I have met think philosophy is evil and hateful and terrible and shouldn't exist. I think it's great and wonderful. Which of us should have our views censored and suppressed? Socrates was viewed as spreading misinformation, and sentenced to death for it. Do you think his works are misinformation?
That's a lot of logical fallacy from someone who claims to have been teaching philosophy.
Moderating blatant misinformation or bomb-making instructions does not inevitably lead to censoring valid political dissent. There is also a significant functional difference between Abstract Ideas (Socrates’ questioning of virtue) and Instructional Violations (blueprints for violence).
Equating moderating a privately run online space to making someone drink hemlock by the way of a state execution is a hell of a reach.
Nope. Never said that. I said "You might not be persecuted for having these “theoretical” discussions, which is fine...".