this post was submitted on 07 Jan 2025
687 points (95.0% liked)

Technology

60340 readers
5298 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
687
Meta Now Lets Users Say Gay and Trans People Have 'Mental Illness' (www.wired.com)
submitted 2 days ago by Sunshine@lemmy.ca to c/technology@lemmy.world
178 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

for what purpose are you arguing for what labels are to be assigned?

I believe in freedom of speech, and I don't think any particular phrases, terms, or verbiage is absolutely unacceptable.

If you ban certain words, people will just substitute them for others with the same underlying meaning. Look at how people dance around YouTube's TOS to communicate the same thing without using certain words (unalive, "super mario brothers," etc). Banning people for using certain terminology or discussing certain topics completely misses the point, which is eliminating intolerance.

this label is harmful

It's not the label that's harmful, it's the intent and meaning behind it. Policies for a platform should be based on the root of the issue, not the symptoms.

[–] zeezee@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

So your argument is "people will break the rules so we shouldn't have any rules because it doesn't matter"?

This is the classic nazi bar argument - which has been proven time and time again that "free speech absolutism" consistently leads to spaces becoming hostile to marginalized groups

I see you have your heart in the right place but by insisting on everyone having equal rights to say anything - you are inherently favoring the oppressor over the oppressed.

I don't think we'll come to an agreement so I'll stop replying as this feels futile to argue over.

EDIT: Just FYI this is what you're defending in this instance

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

“free speech absolutism” consistently leads to spaces becoming hostile to marginalized groups

It's not the free speech that causes it, it's that "free speech" is being used as a weapon to tolerate intolerance. You can tolerate Nazi insignias in a bar w/o tolerating Nazis, you throw people out who are intolerant, and let those remain who are respectful. In fact, I would love to go to a WW2-themed bar with a mix of historical symbols and whatnot from all sides of the war (Nazis, Japanese Imperialists, Allies, etc) where nobody tolerates actual Nazis.

I want a space where I can discuss things that are uncomfortable without fear of getting banned. That's what I'm after when I push for free speech.