675
Community Notes vanishes from X feeds, raising 'serious questions' amid ongoing EU probe
(www.thejournal.ie)
this post was submitted on 28 May 2025
675 points (98.4% liked)
Technology
71922 readers
3417 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- 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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- 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
view the rest of the comments
First, don't fall into the trap of confusing censorship with moderation. Second, don't confuse the world's richest man's sad attempt at fueling culture wars with plain racism.
I used to use Twitter and I know for a fact that it's literally being limited by not allowing it to be read or seen, appearing under one of those disclaimers at the bottom of a thread that was caught by the filter and in practice functions as a convenient dustbin to silence discourse. And you said it yourself, it's being treated differently by preventing its diffusion and visibility.
Or tell me, why is a neutral word like cisgender being censored at all? But spare me the gaslighting.
How do you know this? If you can't see it or read it, how do you know this?
That isn't censorship.
Again - it's not being censored. You don't get posts removed for saying it. You don't get banned. The term is a controversial one, it's not "neutral". "Cisgender" has no need to even exist as a word. You don't need a word to mean "not trans", which is 99.99% of the population. The word "transgender" existing negates a need for "cisgender" to exist. "Cisgender" is really only ever used as an insult, which is why it's treated as such. There's no word for "not blind", because not being blind is the default, the standard.
It's funny you say that. Moderation that removes all differing opinions, and bans people who express them, is censorship. Limiting the reach of posts deemed "hateful", while not removing them or banning the person posting them, is not censorship.
Because it's been reported by the news that I cited.
It's the literal definition. Just because it's thinly veiled as a moderation measure by a billionaire doesn't mean that the core concept doesn't apply. Like I said, don't confuse it either way.
And like I said, censorship is not only when your content gets removed or you get banned. You can have a similar effect with different mechanisms that effectively render content invisible, and I find it disingenuous of you not to consider that.
Brother, we have created entire fictional languages for less, and have names for concepts you can't even conceive of. Your argument is fragile. And your monolignualism is showing with those nearsighted takes.
Cisgender has been thrown at Musk and his supporters because they treat it as an insult. Don't even. lol
It's most definitely a form of censorship, and I will die on this hill tonight.
From your own source:
Strange censorship that is, letting you say what you want.
I know, strange times we live in where "liberal" words are treated as if they were so dangerous that they need a consent screen. I don't see that happening to hate speech and you're here defending this.
I know it doesn't register in your mind the implications but I don't expect you to.
Btw, you seem to be defending a company that does this shit:
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/social-media/elon-musk-x-twitter-antisemitism-hashtags-trending-hate-rcna151945
If you say the n word on twitter you get the same message, as you do with other slurs.
A company that relies on ads putting ads in their service? Oh no, the horror....
I love how you reply by pretending that everything I've said up to this point hasn't been said in this thread.
But I love more how you pretend that the contents of the ads being served to millions of users shouldn't be reviewed for hate speech because the company is turning a profit and that makes it all ok.
Tell me, how old are you and what is your highest level of education? You sound sus as hell with these myopic replies. You really sound like you haven't experienced life.
More educated than you, I can almost guarantee :). Some people call me Doctor, though I think that should be reserved for science and medicine. What’s yours btw? Degree in gender studies or arts? The lefts obsession with calling everyone they disagree with “uneducated” is so pathetic.
What are you talking about with regards to the contents of the ads? The “issue” that some people pretend to have is that they don’t think ads should be shown near content they deem hateful. It’s not the contents of the ads that people complain about. As for that complaint, only dimwit sees an ad and instantly thinks that the company the ad is for supports whatever views are shared in the same vicinity of it. In reality it was just a way for the left to try and guilt advertisers into leaving Twitter because they were upset that Elon ruined their safe space.
Oh really? I can almost always tell because it's obvious in breath, depth and consideration shown in of the replies.
I sincerely can't believe that someone who claims to be on par with a doctor doesn't even entertain the possibility that the content of an ad could be problematic on a sociological level. And that's on top of misconstruing the point I was making.
You mean the advertisers of big corporations who care about their brand image don't like that, right doctor?
Do you think that that article you linked is saying that the content of the ads are "hateful" or "problematic"? That's not what it's talking about. It's talking about showing normal ads near "hateful" content.
They only care when a bunch of idiots pretend that having an ad in the vicinity of something they don't like means that the brand supports the thing they don't like. They don't actually care, they just pretended to so they could essentially blackmail companies into pulling advertising dollars from Twitter so they could try and harm twitter.
Did you not realise that? Did you really think that it was just a coincidence that all of a sudden it became some giant issue just as elon musk bought Twitter?
Love it - when you try to make fun of me when you think I'm "uneducated" and it falls flat on its face because I'm more educated than you, you then try to make fun of me for being more educated than you lol. Amazing.
You also didn't answer my question, while I answered yours. That's not very nice. What is your highest level of education and, if it was higher than high school, what was the area/qualification?
Studies indicate a link between the ad and its emotionally charged context to viewers. [1] [2] I know that Musk claimed that several times, almost verbatim as you said it, but it's not exactly true. And I also know because I've had that visceral reaction to an ad being 'misplaced'. I don't think it's an empty claim at all, and the company has every right to decide where to show their ads and why.
Like how Elon made it a huge deal himself by publicly telling companies to 'go fuck yourself' if they didn't like it his way?
Nope, this is not a pissing contest. This is a can-you-piss test because I think your takes don't reflect your level of education. I can count at least two that I find quite baffling, so I had to ask.