• jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    The problem with deplatforming people is eventually your group is going to be the out group, and it’s going to get deplatformed. Either we have freedom of expression for everybody or for nobody.

    • Gsus4@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s perfectly fine to deplatform selectively anyone who is trying to threaten, intimidate, harass others. You don’t automatically get freedom of speech if you don’t follow society’s rules of coexistence between groups.

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Lemmy and distributed systems like it are designed to prevent any one group to get deplatformed.

        If a group of people are breaking laws, judges should sanction them. It shouldn’t be up to corporations to remove their voice. If any one group can remove the voice of another group, no matter how righteously, without legal due process then we are just having a popularity contest.

        • Gsus4@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          In this case in particular, depends whether he broke their terms of service, which is by itself more arbitrary than the law :/ I don’t think the guy did, so maybe he can win in court :)

          By the way, if you break the rules in your instance, you gettin’ banned, so Lemmy is the same. The cool thing about it is that the rules vary from instance to instance and you should know what they are before you federate with them or open an account there.