this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2025
775 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

64075 readers
5807 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 other!
  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
  10. 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
[–] melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com 26 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

can someone explain to me the difference between corporate and government censorship, when corporations and the government are definitely fucking?

[–] sik0fewl@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

One is illegal, the other is not.

[–] melpomenesclevage@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

and does that word mean anything in this context?

[–] drzoidberg@lemmy.world 7 points 2 hours ago

No. Nothing reddit is doing is illegal. When you sign up for a service like reddit, there is a TOS, which allows them to ban, warn, limit interaction, etc, at their discretion when terms of their TOS are violated.

If their TOS doesn't allow pictures of butterflies, and you post pictures of butterflies, you will receive a warning. Continue posting butterflies, you'll get banned, until eventually receiving a permaban. There is absolutely nothing illegal about it, because their TOS specifically states no butterfly pictures.

[–] commander@lemmings.world 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

People get mad over government censorship, but condone corporate censorship if it's something they want censored.

[–] drzoidberg@lemmy.world -3 points 1 hour ago (2 children)

Going against an agreement you agreed to abide by is not censorship. If you don't like the agreement, don't agree to it.

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 1 points 24 minutes ago (1 children)

It's not illegal for the other party to include it, but it is absolutely censorship by any definition of the word.

[–] drzoidberg@lemmy.world 0 points 5 minutes ago (1 children)

If you're stupid, yes. If you have half a brain, it's not.

If you play in the MLB and take steroids, you get suspended, and if you keep taking steroids, you get a lifetime suspension. Steroids aren't illegal. That's not censorship. It's breaking the rules and facing the consequences of breaking the rules.

If you're stupid and think facing consequences for breaking a rule you agreed to is censorship, that's on you for being stupid.

[–] JcbAzPx@lemmy.world 1 points 26 seconds ago

Steroids aren't speech.

[–] commander@lemmings.world 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 11 minutes ago) (1 children)

Agreeing to be censored doesn't mean you're not being censored.

Lol. The pro-censorship crowd really is a sight to behold. Glad I'm not loyal to it!

[–] drzoidberg@lemmy.world -3 points 53 minutes ago

If you wanna continue to be a fucking moron, that's on you, doesn't change the fact that if you agree to not do something, and you do it, there are consequences.

But keep bitching because you're too stupid to know what a TOS is, and the consequences of breaking a TOS you agree to, because you're too stupid to read.