• Nate Cox@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s hard to have a discourse on a topic if you insist that the scope of that topic must by default be infinite.

    X isn’t being threatened with litigation because they’re freedom fighters bringing literature to the huddled masses; they’re being threatened with litigation because they are a billion dollar business sustaining themselves by selling ads along with content that Brazil argues was misinformation and hate speech.

    On the topic of freedom fighters bringing literature to the huddled masses: it may be moral in some extreme examples to defy the government, but there are means of doing that completely removed from the scope of microblogging on a corporate behemoth’s web platform. For example, there is an international organization who’s sole purpose is perusing human rights violations.

    • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      it may be moral in some extreme examples

      Are they extreme? Is bad censorship genuinely rare?

      but there are means of doing that completely removed from the scope of microblogging on a corporate behemoth’s web platform. For example, there is an international organization who’s sole purpose is perusing human rights violations.

      I think it’s relevant that tech platforms, and software more generally, has a sort of reach and influence that international organizations do not, especially when it comes to the flow of information. What is the limit you’re suggesting here on what may be done to oppose harmful censorship? That it be legitimized by some official consensus? That a “right to censor” exist and be enforced but be subject to some form of formalized regulation? That would exempt any tyranny of the most influential states.