• @Clbull@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -82 years ago

    I’m gonna respectfully disagree. Free speech is a big reason why our world is so fucked right now.

    • Space Sloth
      link
      fedilink
      English
      52 years ago

      Tell me that you didn’t read the article without telling me you didn’t read the article.

    • @Daft_ish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      7
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Whoa whoa whoa. Free speech is the reason the world you live in has advanced to this point…

      Fucking psycho.

      The issue is not free speech. The issue is people think free speech means discourse without consequences.

      • @Clbull@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -3
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        I’m a psycho because I don’t like how toxic the internet and society has become, and how easily people are manipulated by hate speech and hateful ideologies?

        • @Daft_ish@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          3
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Society has always been toxic. Might I remind you of slavery? Might I remind you of the Holy Roman Catholic Church?

          Free speech is what broke those cycles and is what will keep the internet out of the hands of other oppressors. Yes people are vile but we need to learn to manage those voices not wholesale silence them. If a motor is screaming you shouldn’t say, “let’s shove a plug in the muffler.” You fix the motor and maintain it.

  • @Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -13
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    ISPs are private, they can do whatever they want with their service. Create a state run ISP if you want to impose free speech on an ISP.

    Also fuck USA’s definition of free speech that lets people share hate.

    Bring in the downvotes!

    • regalia
      link
      fedilink
      English
      92 years ago

      Why wouldn’t you want free speech protection to be regulated to private companies as well

        • @wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          132 years ago

          Just because you get to a public park in a privately operated taxi doesn’t mean the park is suddenly private. It would also be absurd for the taxi to have a say in how you spend your time in the park.

          I also refuse to trust that any private corporation would have my best interests at heart, or that they would not use the excuse of policing hate speech to also interfere with discussion against their corporate interests.

          • @Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            22 years ago

            If you enter the taxi and the driver sees that you’ve got a shirt with a swastika the driver can tell you they’re not taking you for this reason.

        • regalia
          link
          fedilink
          English
          22 years ago

          I didn’t ask that, I asked why wouldn’t you want that?

    • @FMT99@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      182 years ago

      Agreed, ISPs should be public services. The Internet is an essential service these days. Shouldn’t be left in private hands.

  • NIGGER
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -22 years ago

    NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER

  • NIGGER
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -32 years ago

    NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER

  • @ToniCipriani@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    11
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    It doesn’t help that the ISPs are run by media companies, who put the content on the Internet…

    That’s why the policing is even happening in the first place.

  • Brave Little Hitachi Wand
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1962 years ago

    Platforms should, like how we had to shut down our shit posting community for CSAM.

    ISPs are a privatized infrastructure and should really be run as utilities. Like trains or water should be.

    The world has been treated as a for-profit endeavor and this has many regrettable consequences.

    • originalucifer
      link
      fedilink
      1282 years ago

      exactly. switch my packets, and shut the fuck up.

      the water company isnt trying to upsell me on premium water services, i would like the same from my isp thankyouverymuch.

        • originalucifer
          link
          fedilink
          242 years ago

          think of how much money could be saved not having to advertise alone.

          we literally have a pretend market for who owns the last mile to force competition into a market that shouldnt exist. insane

      • Metaright
        link
        fedilink
        182 years ago

        Buy our premium package for 40% less microplastics, guaranteed*!

      • @mx_smith@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 years ago

        Check out the company Aqua, they have been buying public water companies across the country and running them into the ground with no government oversight since they are a private company.

    • @duxbellorum@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      -272 years ago

      It’s an unpopular opinion, but crippling platforms due to CSAM is a lot more harmful than what would happen if we did not have such draconian laws around it. Do people think there would be some dramatic explosion of CSAM? I don’t buy that for a second and the act of producing such material has always and will always be illegal, so like everything else, it seems ridiculous to prosecute the particular crime of posession.

      Seize all funds received for distributing it, throw anyone involved in producing it in prison and throw away the key, and stop holding threat of social death over anybody’s head if some idiots throw a bunch of digital gunk at them.

      • On
        link
        fedilink
        202 years ago

        it seems ridiculous to prosecute the particular crime of posession

        what does this even mean? you mean with people hoarding CSAM shouldn’t be charged because they’re not distributing it?

        Do people think there would be some dramatic explosion of CSAM?

        Yes, this is not your local backwater town where you know there are a few visibly shitty & disgusting people and people tell their kids to stay away and everyone becomes safe. And if you think shit doesn’t explode on the internet, you might be living under a rock last 2 decades.

        That’s stupid on a whole new level and your made up scenario doesn’t make it any better. No one is threatened for having been sent some questionable content. The person who sent those however might be and the tech today makes it incredibly easy to prove where anything came from since everyone is being tracked.

        Seize all funds received for distributing it, throw anyone involved in producing it in prison and throw away the key,

        How about we prevent such things from happening by discouraging it in the firat place? Sure, they won’t be down to 0, but your solution starting after the distribution has already started is highly disturbing.

        • @pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          72 years ago

          what does this even mean? you mean with people hoarding CSAM shouldn’t be charged because they’re not distributing it?

          He’s just a dirty MAP apologist. Ignore him.

            • @pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              3
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              You just don’t understand that they’re using the possession argument to get their foot in the door to convince you to accept pedophilia.

              It’s an incremental approach often taken by evil people and organizations and it’s been done before to great effect, e.g. everyone accepting government surveillance, to the point where we carry surveillance devices wherever we go, when back only 30 years ago it would have been considered unconscionable.

              The possession argument is their strongest one because the possibility of affecting non-pedos makes people feel more sympathetic toward actual pedos and convinces people to accept removing one of the most important social guardrails we have against them.

              The truth is that the possession argument is a nothingburger anyway because

              1. Feds are not stupid and know the difference between actual pedos and who is not, and will acknowledge their victims – of which websites like .world are in a serious way

              2. The possession problem can be got around through official CSAM filters that major corporations already use and can be built by the feds, who can create an open API for everyone to use. Meaning there’s no excuse for someone to just have CP on hand unless it’s obvious they’re being victimized with it like .world is

              3. The risk of some hapless website owner getting caught up in possession laws are worth the risk to ensure as close to an absolute ban on CP as we can get. CP is too dangerous and pedophilia is too harmful for humanity for everyone in society to not be willing to accept that.


              They, like all apologists, are banking on you taking their word on face value without thinking critically about what they’re saying or asking for. CP is like social nuclear waste; just being exposed to it at all extremely damages people. Don’t fall for their shit.

            • phillaholic
              link
              fedilink
              English
              32 years ago

              They claim it stands for Minor Attracted Person

              … and that’s better? There are already separate terms for those attracted to under age people vs prepubescence people. The latter is a serious mental condition that needs help. The former is something society has largely agreed upon being morally wrong. In what world is “MAP” sufficient cover? Weird.

        • @uis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -32 years ago

          what does this even mean? you mean with people hoarding CSAM shouldn’t be charged because they’re not distributing it?

          This means that current prosecution violates principles of criminal prosecution: namely requirement of intent.

        • @xePBMg9@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          13
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          I think the problem that poster was trying to illustrate is that it is unpractical to shut down a site or force the site to spend a significant overhead just cause a user could post a certain sequence of bytes to the site. An analogy to the real world would be some guy paints some graffiti on the pavement and the response, every time, being the complete shutdown of the city for a month or complete surveillance on every cm2 of pavement plus cleaning crews standing by every 10m.

      • @ZodiacSF1969@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        182 years ago

        As a CSA survivor, who had images taken of me while I was abused… Fuck you.

        People wanting to possess it is exactly what encourages people to produce the material. If you let people possess it with no consequences you will let the demand shoot up and basic economics should tell you what happens next with the supply part.

        That is disgusting. Seriously. You should feel ashamed of yourself.

        • @uis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          -7
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          It seems I’m going into really wierd conversation.

          If you let people possess it

          I think you are missing the point or are a troll. Person above said that creating and/or buying is always be illigal anyway. Or you want to make easier for abusers to collect information about their future victims by destroying privacy?

          • @pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            8
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            Oh look, another shithead pedo apologist.

            Creating and buying is exactly what they’re trying to get people to accept, incrementally, by attacking possession first. Exploiting the warped way Americans have been taught to think about morality to do it. And your sorry ass is helping him. You doing so is not acceptable AT ALL and neither is any notion of getting rid of CP possession bans.

            You will not make pedophilia socially acceptable and you will not lie to me and say that you aren’t, and then go back to doing it like I know you’re gonna do.

            You’re evil.

            • @uis@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -5
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              Dear Faust, another one. It is so much easier to call opponent Hitler/pedophile/terrorist than counter-argue.

              This is discussion about ISP’s surveillance. This is not just attacking posession. This is attacking computer that relayed data stream. Technically it is message sequence, but the fact we have discussion speaks that you doesn’t care. Should postman go to jail if delivered letter contained child pornography? You say that postman should open and read every letter.

              Your only option to not look like complete troll is to somehow define posession in a way that excludes postman(ISP).

              Here’s my take on your manipulation:

              You will not make espionage socially acceptable and you will not lie to me and say that you aren’t, and then go back to doing so like I know you’re gonna do.

              • @pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                42 years ago

                No. You’re a pedo apologist. No one owes you a counter argument and you’re not going to get the legitimacy you seek from a debate. Fuck off.

      • @Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        13
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Fuck off, you’re just a pedo.

        Edit: I angered at least 6 pedos!

        Edit 2: We’re up to 8 angry pedos now!

    • @TotalCasual@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12 years ago

      Oof… Yeah this.

      When you have a corporation that acts as a stand in for the law, something very wrong has happened.

  • Dizzy Devil Ducky
    link
    fedilink
    English
    13
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    If you ask me (and nobody ever does for good reason), one of the only times an ISP should be pulling the plug on online speech is when you start linking actual malicious links that have a good chance of your grandma losing her retirement funds or your tech illiterate uncle getting a crypto miner installed on his laptop or something equally destructive.

    • @TotalCasual@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12 years ago

      I don’t know why people are disagreeing with you.

      This is like someone setting up a fake stop on a public road to mug people.

      You’re telling me that the state shouldn’t have the right to police the road to prevent that from happening?

      Lemmy.people, are you high?

    • @xePBMg9@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      44
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Your ISP should have no insight in to your traffic at all. Therefore unable to make any judgement on what traffic to block and what not to block. With the exception of volume of traffic and to where it is going.

      • Dizzy Devil Ducky
        link
        fedilink
        English
        0
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Although I do agree they should have no insight, I’d rather the insight they currently have be used to actually block sites from bad actors than just spying on you to most likely sell your data.

      • Flying Squid
        link
        fedilink
        English
        62 years ago

        I remember getting a warning years ago from an ISP I don’t use anymore that my service would be cut off if I downloaded a pirate torrent again. Why the fuck were they paying attention to what I was doing? Even if it was piracy, it was none of their fucking business and they wouldn’t be implicated. I’ve used a VPN ever since.

        • @An_Ugly_Bastard@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          10
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          You’re ISP didn’t care. The production companies are the ones finding out your IP address. Your ISP is just passing the message along.

  • NIGGER
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -22 years ago

    NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER

  • @SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    102 years ago

    “ISPs should monitor and censor bad things!”

    “ISPs shouldn’t be censoring free speech!”

    We already see how bad stuff gets censored or punished on social media with things like bots that cast such a wide net that lots of innocents get caught with no human to appeal to.

    • @Syldon@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      0
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      You only have to look at how the first amendment is abused in the US to understand just how bad free speech without consequence is.

      Yuval Noah Harari did a session with the rest is politics podcast. He brought up a concept that was total alien to me beforehand. In the past fake news has sought to shock people into taking notice. With AI this will change things dramatically. Rogue states will use AI to befriend individuals, and then manipulate the thought process by gentle integration. I found this an immensely scary prospect to dwell on. People rarely think about the person on the other end of a conversation being something other than what they portray. The concept is very credible.

      To me, this is one of the reasons why we must police activity online. But it must be done without government interference. Ideally an international effort should be made. An international fact authentication group would go along way also.

      Edited for better clarity.

  • @Hanabie@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    152 years ago

    Users need more control over the kind of content they want to see. The problem Lemmy has is very similar to the main problem with the internet as a whole: the current model is that of a “regulator” who controls the flow of information for us.

    What I’d like to see is giving users the tools to filter for themselves, which means the internet as a whole. Not interested in sports, let me filter it all out by myself, instead of blocking individual parts piecemeal.

    The problem is that no company has an incentive to work on something like that, and I wouldn’t even know where to start designing such interface tools on my own, but there is, for example, a keyword blocker for YouTube that prevents video that contain said terms from appearing on my timeline. I’ve used it to block everything “Trump”, for example. I’d like to see more of that.

      • hoodatninja
        link
        fedilink
        7
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        It takes me several dozen hours every 6-12mo to keep up with the arms race that is privacy. I can’t imagine what it’s like for people who are less technically inclined. It must be a completely impenetrable problem.

        4 years ago everybody told me to get on Brave. Look what happened lol

        Arguably the most well known VPN is Nord. Yet you can find dozens of posts on HackerNews and other sites saying not to use it.

        It’s one thing to diagnose and try to solve the problem, but then you need a bunch of technical knowledge and knowledge of where to find good answers to even know what solutions are viable or are just a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It’s a total minefield sometimes, it’s hard to not simply land with someone else who wants to take all your data and strip away your privacy.

    • hoodatninja
      link
      fedilink
      16
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      The idea sounds nice in theory, but there is a reason people bring their car to a shop instead of changing their own oil. There are a lot of things we could/should take responsibility for directly but they are far too numerous for us to take responsibility for everyone of them. Sometimes we just have to place trust in groups we loosely vetted (if at all) and hope for the best. We all do it every day in all sorts of capacities.

      To put it another way: do you think we should have the FDA? Or do you think everybody should have to test everything they eat and put on their skin?

      • @Hanabie@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        32 years ago

        I’m talking about internet content. Maybe this is where personal assistants can come into play at some point.

      • @nybble41@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 years ago

        To put it another way: do you think we should have the FDA? Or do you think everybody should have to test everything they eat and put on their skin?

        There is a middle ground. The FDA shouldn’t have the power to ban a product from the market. They should be able to publish their recommendations, however, and people who trust them can choose to follow those recommendations. Others should be free to publish their own recommendations, and some people will choose to follow those instead.

        Applied to online content: Rather than having no filter at all, or relying on a controversial, centralized content policy, users would subscribe to “reputation servers” which would score content based on where it comes from. Anyone could participate in moderation and their moderation actions (positive or negative) would be shared publicly; servers would weight each action according to their own policies to determine an overall score to present to their followers. Users could choose a third-party reputation server to suit their own preferences or run their own, either from scratch or blending recommendations from one or more other servers.

        • @ZodiacSF1969@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          02 years ago

          There is a middle ground. The FDA shouldn’t have the power to ban a product from the market. They should be able to publish their recommendations, however, and people who trust them can choose to follow those recommendations. Others should be free to publish their own recommendations, and some people will choose to follow those instead.

          That’s putting too much responsibility on the average person, who doesn’t have the time to become educated enough in biology and pharmacology to understand what every potentially harmful product may do to them. What if they never even hear the FDA recommendation?

          Also, though you’d like to think this would only harm the individual in question who purchases a harmful product, there are many ways innocent third parties could be harmed through this. Teratogens are just one example.

          This kind of laissez-faire attitude just doesn’t work in the real world. There’s a reason we ban overtly harmful substances.

          • @nybble41@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            02 years ago

            What if they never even hear the FDA recommendation?

            Then the FDA isn’t doing a very good job, are they? Ensuring that people hear their recommendations (and trust them) would be among their core goals.

            The rare fringe cases where someone is affected indirectly without personally having choosen to purchase the product can be dealt with through the courts. There is no need for preemptive bans.

              • @nybble41@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                12 years ago

                No, I am not okay with bans like that. You should be able to knowingly buy products with mercury in them. Obviously if someone is selling products containing mercury and not disclosing that fact, passing them off as safe to handle, that would be a problem and they would be liable for any harm that resulted from that. But it doesn’t justify a preemptive ban.

        • hoodatninja
          link
          fedilink
          3
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          That isn’t a middle ground. You’re just saying the state can publish a recommendation, which it always has been able to. That’s absolutely in the “unregulated” / “no safety nets” camp. It’s caveat emptor as a status quo and takes us back to the gilded age.

          To put it another way: The middle ground between “the state has no authority here” and “the state can regulate away a product” isn’t “the state can suggest we don’t buy it.” It still puts the burden on the consumer in an unreasonable way. We can’t assess literally everything we consume. If I go to a grocery store and buy apples, I can reasonably assume they won’t poison me. Without basic regulations this is not possible. You can’t feed 8 billion people without some rules.

          Let me be clear, I agree with the EFF on this particular issue. ISP’s should not regulate speech and what sites I browse. But it’s not the same as having the FDA. For starters, ISP’s are private corporations.

          • @nybble41@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12 years ago

            You misunderstood. It’s not a middle ground between “can regulate” and “cannot regulate”. That would indeed be idiotic. It’s a middle ground between “must judge everything for yourself” and “someone else determines what you have access to”. Someone else does the evaluation and tells you whether they think it’s worthwhile, but you choose whose recommendations to listen to (or ignore, if you please).

  • NIGGER
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -22 years ago

    NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER NIGGER

  • BassaForte
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1162 years ago

    ISPs shouldn’t be doing anything other than providing internet service.