Technology

60359 readers

5593 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 another!
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

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

652

It’s not censorship to stop hateful online content, insists UN rights chief (news.un.org)

submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

229 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

what does that mean if not the right to free speech?

It just means being allowed to say what you want. It has nothing to do with rights or laws.

Just because the far right tries to change the definition

Uhhhh that's the opposite of what's happening. The UN is the one trying to change the definition to pretend it means something other than what it does.

letting them say what they want doesn't change anything. That's not free speech,

Yes. That is the very definition of free speech.

that's restricting the platform owner's speech.

The platform is not the one being censored. The users are.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea 1 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

It seems we're arguing the same thing.

The far right in the US argues that "free speech" means forcing large SM orgs to give them a platform, and this UN goon seems to think it means silencing "hate speech" (I guess freedom from speech?).

Both are wrong.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

The far right in the US argues that "free speech" means forcing large SM orgs to give them a platform

Yes that's what it means. The platforms are under no obligation to give it to them, but if they don't allow certain types of speech, that is the definition of censorship (the opposite of free speech). It is their prerogative as a private platform to censor speech.

and this UN goon seems to think it means silencing "hate speech" (I guess freedom from speech?).

The UN goons think silencing hate speech is not censorship. It is. Let's stop playing senseless semantics games and just own it. Say "yes we are censoring hate speech" because arguing that it's not is dishonest.

[–] sugar_in_your_tea 1 points 11 hours ago

Exactly, and I argue censorship is only a problem when it comes from the government. If a private platform censors my speech, I can either accept it or go elsewhere. If the government censors my speech, I'm screwed.