Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
I read the article.
and I get that we were all taught to ask questions for the titles on our high school essays, but asking why pro-hitler content is promoted by a company whose CEO literally publicly performed a Nazi salute is less effective than the headline:
"There is a pro-hitler and Holocaust-denying ad on Twitter."
It's like we have forgotten - some questions have a right answer.
"Was"? It was removed, right?.... RIGHT?
Why? Because it's owned by Nazis.
People are still questioning why??
Better question: Why the fuck are you still on Twitter?
Better question: what are people going to do in response?
Probably nothing. Disappointing.
I already don't use Twitter, and encourage my friends not to, either. But I did that years ago. There's not really a whole lot else I can do? Start a Fight Club, squat in an old condemned house, and blow up their building at the end? I have bills to pay and family that depends on those bills being paid.
What should they do? Outlaw free speech & things that other people don't like? Guess I'll be going to jail since I'm an atheist & will gladly call most Christians mentally ill. Since Trump is in power prob will be one of the first things he outlaws. You should research legal cases regarding free speech. Many Jews have even represented & defended Nazis rights to march & speak their opinions in public without violence or censorship. There are many good arguments & thought that has went into that case law. Just cause it bothers you doesn't mean that it hasn't been considered before.
Paradox of tolerance comes to mind. If you just put up with people who want to do bad things, they'll probably do bad things!
And it was considered before. There was a Holocaust. It was decided, via violence and other means, that naziism is not okay.
Also, Twitter is a private platform and is largely free to decide what goes on its platform.
You're approaching fractally wrong, here.
Over 50 years of case law on the subject shows I'm right, but go on and tell me how you're degree in emotions proves me wrong.
There are numerous cases showing that free speech is not absolute.
Law is also not necessarily correct.
And that doesn't address that we're talking about a private platform.
You're still wrong, and you're still wrong in a way that supports the absolute worst of humanity.
There are numerous cases showing that free speech is not absolute.
Law is also not necessarily correct.
Both things fascist have said as well.
Also, what prominent cases in the US would you like to discuss regarding free speech where you think the courts have ruled incorrectly?
I'm not going to do legal research or write a whole thesis for you.
Maybe start here for cases where freedom of speech is not absolute: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater
You can also consider that the NYT is not legally or morally obligated to publish every letter they receive. Are your first amendment rights being violated when they opt not to print your letter? No.
I don't want to discuss with you. I don't think you're acting in good faith.
I mean really "sometimes laws are incorrect" -> "fascists say that" is like satire.
So your opinion on this topic is 100% based on your emotional feelings & 5 minutes of Wikipedia research, which isn't even regarding to latter precedent like in Brandenburg v. Ohio? Maybe spend more than 5 minutes getting your emotional reassurance next time. X is a private company & so they can choose to use the free speech definition according to law, which the government can't restrict... that means you can't lock up people cause they offend you & can't commit assault & murder like many people here commonly advocate for, cause to them everyone they don't like is a Nazi.
You can run away now back to your hidey hole & then go find some people that are pro-fascist & censorship that you can agree with.
You're an idiot that's not engaging with my points. I hope you die alone, removed from everything you've ever loved.
There it is. The vengeful & death-wishing fascist cultist. Explains why you like fascist ideals like censorship.