Comment on Bluesky suspending antifascist researchers for sharing publicly available information about literal nazis.

IHeartBadCode@fedia.io ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

• misk@piefed.social ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  That’s also what many other social media would do because it’s easier to ban posting of personal information regardless of where it came from because you can’t trust moderation you outsourced to some third world country to do proper checks.

  Example:

  No. Reddit is quite open and pro-free speech, but it is not okay to post someone’s personal information or post links to personal information. This includes links to public Facebook pages and screenshots of Facebook pages with the names still legible.

  Posting someone’s personal information will get you banned. When posting screenshots, be sure to edit out any personally identifiable information to avoid running afoul of this rule.

  https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043066452-Is-posting-someone-s-private-or-personal-information-okay

  source

  • 73ms@sopuli.xyz ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    can always come up with rationalizations but the fact remains there are other platforms that will not “cost optimize” it away.

    source

    • misk@piefed.social ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Those platforms are irrelevant. Yes, I realise I’m using an irrelevant platform - that was always my intention.

      source
  • cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    Bullshit. They’re just protecting Nazis. A competent programmer could write an algorithm to knock out the low hanging fruit, like public Facebook pages, in about five minutes.

    Might take me a couple hours. Someone genuinely good and familiar with the space would have been done in less time than it took to write this comment.

    source

    • misk@piefed.social ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      They don’t want to deal with the slightest risk of dealing with legal consequences. The ole corpo risk matrix + risk appetite as assessed by lawyers resulted in this, no IT involved ever probably.

      source

      • cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨6⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Totally, corporations will always go fasch, not just because they want to¹ but because it’s what they are

        But

        can’t trust moderation

        There is low hanging fruit that can be procedurally verified.

        They chose this, obviously, clearly

        ¹they always want to

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • IHeartBadCode@fedia.io ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    That doesn't change the aspect of it being censorship. It just means that a risk adverse company is risk adverse to the degree that they will employ censorship to maintain that aversion to risk. At the end of the day, it's censorship. The rationale for why they've employed it is notwithstanding.

    source

    • misk@piefed.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      Censorship can be good. Do you know why Reddit has this rule in the first place?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Sunil_Tripathi

      source

      • IHeartBadCode@fedia.io ⁨4⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Your example is people randomly sharing information. That is not the same as a Government entity after following the process outlined in the law, releasing information related to that Government action. We know who is awarded contracts, we know where tax payer money is going to, and so on because of disclosure requirements by Government entities.

        When an elected entity has acted in a manner accordance to law, that action ought to reasonably disclose the subject of that action. That's not to say 100% it always must be this way, but this is why we allow the public to comment on changes to those disclosure requirements.

        I would like for you to understand, there's a very fundamental difference between "random people" and "people via a method given power to rule over other people." That fundamental difference between the two is key to the point here.

        source

        • -> View More Comments