• Mrkawfee@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      I know right? Who would have thought centralised social media owned by surveillance capitalist billionaires could do this?

        • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Because that will enable people to see and interact with the things their users post without themselves being under their control.

        • JustSomePerson@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          11 months ago

          Because we are not censorship happy pieces of shit. We judge every statement for what it is, rather than applying guilt by association in three steps.

          Most people who want to block Meta from the fediverse want to do it because they want to block people’s opinions and statements from reaching them. They want the fediverse to be a “safe space” (a term which thankfully has lost most of its momentum in the last few years) where no dissenting or nuanced opinion is welcome. Somehow you’re trying to turn Meta’s similar behavior into an argument against them, even though it’s an example of both organizations doing similar things (prohibiting unwanted opinions).

          • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            No, sane members here just don’t want to see pro-corporate horseshit, bots and Meta’s psyop motherfuckers trying to shape opinions here with their corporate agenda like they already do on their own platform. If users themselves want to attempt this sort of thing, that’s on them and we can deal with that. Meta is guilty preemptively, and we should not treat them as if they aren’t. This is just yet more proof. The fact that Meta does this is not an “opinion.” It’s a fact. The type of agenda they’re pushing, whoever they’re pro or against is irrelevant. It’s the attempt to push that matters.

            And we already ban tons of content here. Try posting some pro-Nazi stuff, for instance, and see what happens. There are a whole host of actions and topics that are explicitly prohibited just in the lemmy.world ToS. Trying to claim that there’s no censorship on this instance or in the Fediverse as a whole is such a monumentally stupid fucking statement that no one can take anything else you said seriously.

            Go shill for your megacorporation somewhere else.

            • chitak166@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              Go shill for your megacorporation somewhere else.

              Why do all of you people reply like this as though you’re objectively correct?

            • JustSomePerson@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              11 months ago

              I am not claiming that there’s no censorship in the fediverse. I’m claiming that there is censorship, meaning that the fact that Meta also uses censorship is no argument against them. You censor people you call nazis, they censor people who think three generations of occupation in Palestine is a bad thing. Both have problems. This piece of news about Meta censorship is not an argument against federation.

              • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                11 months ago

                This piece of news is more proof (as if we didn’t already have enough) that Meta specifically is an entity that cannot be trusted to act in good faith, and therefore integrating with them is a risk we should not take. In case you cannot understand this concept, remember that instances that are generally accepted as harmful due to their content, behavior, or just who operates them are already defederated with most/all other major instances, for good reason. This is no different. Except for one detail: We already have decades of experience with Meta/Facebook and their evil, monopolistic, and user hostile behavior. They are a known quantity to us.

                You were the one who tried to narrow the goalposts to make the argument specifically only about censorship. All of Meta’s bad behavior is valid cause for concern. Institutionalized politically motivated censorship is just one aspect of it. What we do and don’t allow on our own particular instances has no bearing on it. Trying to bleat “both sides bad” is not a valid argument in this case.

                • JustSomePerson@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  trusted to act in good faith

                  You are not acting in good faith when you are arguing that your members should be blocked from communicating with anybody on Meta servers, because of guilt by association. What you don’t allow on your particular instances has great bearing, because it shows that you are no different from them, other than in which opinions you consider to be worthy of suppressing.

                  • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    Meta: Mass suppression of users and political topics, overt attempts at manipulation of public opinion via bots and paid shills, deliberate construction of their algorithms to display specific content targeted at users designed to sway their opinion or get them to buy something, ads, massive violations of privacy, spying, tracking, mishandling of user data, tacit approval of hate speech and fascist rhetoric, and flagrant violation of both domestic and foreign laws.

                    Me: Hey, we can see what they’re doing over there and we really shouldn’t let them bring it over here.

                    You: “YoU’rE BoTh ThE SaMe!!!”

                    Do you actually believe the horseshit you’re spouting, or are you just that out of touch with reality?