• poo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      225
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      He’s such a disgusting greedy little pig boy who frankly belongs in a deep hole where nobody will find him 🙏

    • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      I agree, but what the Irish are doing is dumb. If reddit it hit with that, then so should Google and the whole of the internet, since everything can get you videos. No one should be in charge of sensoring the internet.

      • Naryn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        18
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        If you want to operate in a country, you have to abide by their laws.

        • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          If you want to restrict your people more than the rest of the world, cut yourself off from the world wide web.

        • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          I mean, there’s one typo where it says “it” instead of “is”, but other than that it all looks to make sense enough. By all the votes it looks like most people understand it just fine.

          • Clanket@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            Google and other companies are being covered by it, as they are headquartered in Ireland for their EU activity. So what’s dumb about that? And what are you on about sensoring? Did you even read the article?

            • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              2 months ago

              I did, and aside from youtube, I don’t see any mention in the article of “google”. Plus while what is listed out as being banned is all well and good, except one of them could have a whole lot of room for interpretation. Who’s to say what determines incitement to hatred? All listed platforms are big established entities with bankrolls and all already don’t really allow anything listed by the Irish, so really it just seems like an attempt at a money grab for Ireland to issue fines and collect cash whenever they decide.

    • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      51
      ·
      2 months ago

      Absolutely fuck spez.

      But he’s right here. Just because he’s a fuckstick doesn’t mean he’s always wrong on every issue 100% of the time.

      Various forms of censorship under the flag of ‘online safety’ have been pushed by governments since the internet began to exist. And before that with print media and television. Censorship is not the answer. Never was. First it was for porn, then it was for video games, then it was for hate speech, it’s always something.

      But in the words of Captain Jean-Luc Picard,

      “With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.”

      Censorship must be opposed.

      • ℬ𝒶𝓃𝒶𝓃𝒶@communick.news
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        52
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        2 months ago

        I disagree since I think censorship can be desired when combatting hate speech. Maybe we just disagree how exactly we use the word ‘censorship’.

        • theneverfox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          No, the community needs to cyber bully them off the platform. They need to feel rejection for their words, not censorship. Censorship lets them frame themselves as the victim as they seek out a smaller echo chamber on the fringes. They need to learn their words will turn the community against them

          We still have to live with them. We can’t ignore them or silence them - we have to correct them

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

            And what would happen when the community itself is built on hatred and welcomes hate wholeheartedly?

            • theneverfox@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              What do you mean? It works the same way, the opinion of the community will pull you closer to the group consensus. Too much exposure will have horrible things you don’t really believe spilling out of your mouth

              Don’t go there, don’t spread word about it, don’t feed it in any way. It’s like flood water - pull others out of it if you can, but minimize your exposure

              As to shutting them down if you have the ability? Shutting down a cesspool is good - it fragments the echo chamber, and some members won’t make the migration. The only question is if I trust the one making that decision to remain impartial

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

                Yeah, trusting someone to make right decisions is hard because this trust usually ends up being betrayed sooner or later.

                Regarding the first part, I meant that we as a community can’t put enough pressure on a bully to make em leave, if that bully is part of the community that supports em.

                • theneverfox@pawb.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  Ah, but that’s the beauty of it. Why are they here? If it’s to troll, don’t give them what they want. If it’s for social interaction… Why are they venturing out of their echo chamber?

                  Every interaction with a community pulls you slightly closer to the group consensus. You can fight it to some extent, but we’re wired to fit in with the tribe

                  Social rejection is wired similar to pain in our brains - it’s far more salient, far more memorable and impactful, than normal interactions.

                  The highest form of this is rejection by the community - it hurts most when everyone’s attention is on you and they all reject you. Even a single person quietly reaching out afterwards is like a lifeline - it stands out to you. It takes hundreds or thousands of “normal” interactions to counteract one extreme negative one

                  A supportive community back home doesn’t counteract the impacts from an away game. Don’t go to their turf, let them come to ours. Do not feed them - we have better content, they’ll lose members to us, and if we do it right they’ll shrink until their echo chambers can no longer sustain themselves

        • SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          You are addressing the wrong problem. You’re focusing on the symptom rather than the disease.

          Fighting hate speech rather than hatred itself only strengthens the hatred. As soon as you say “you mustn’t say that” you validate the hatred and give it power. Look at any counterculture, positive or negative. Trying to suppress it only validates it, gives it legitimacy as being important enough for the establishment to want to suppress, and if the people who might support the hatred already don’t like the people who would suppress the hate speech, you’ve just poured fuel on the fire.

          The problem to be fixed isn’t hate speech, it’s hatred. It’s a tougher problem to solve, but a much more important one that you will actually get a productive effect by solving it.

          • ℬ𝒶𝓃𝒶𝓃𝒶@communick.news
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            You make a good point. Hate must be addressed at its root.

            I see hate speech censorship as important for protecting the victims/vulnerable. How can we protect these people without this censorship?

            Do you have any favourite examples of how a society can fight hatred?