Skip to content

Supreme Court to decide whether ISPs must disconnect users accused of piracy

Technology
176 129 2
  • AI Pressure from the Top: CEOs Urge Workers to Adapt

    Technology technology
    1
    1
    1 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    5 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • 148 Stimmen
    92 Beiträge
    27 Aufrufe
    B
    You don't even need a VPN. Only the legit sites will play ball. Porn will still be there.
  • 18 Stimmen
    1 Beiträge
    2 Aufrufe
    Niemand hat geantwortet
  • Open Source CAD In The Browser

    Technology technology
    19
    1
    152 Stimmen
    19 Beiträge
    20 Aufrufe
    xavier666@lemm.eeX
    Electron: Heyyyyyyy
  • 257 Stimmen
    67 Beiträge
    15 Aufrufe
    L
    Maybe you're right: is there verification? Neither content policy (youtube or tiktok) clearly lays out rules on those words. I only find unverified claims: some write it started at YouTube, others claim TikTok. They claim YouTube demonetizes & TikTok shadowbans. They generally agree content restrictions by these platforms led to the propagation of circumspect shit like unalive & SA. TikTok policy outlines their moderation methods, which include removal and ineligibility to the for you feed. Given their policy on self-harm & automated removal of potential violations, their policy is to effectively & recklessly censor such language. Generally, censorship is suppression of expression. Censorship doesn't exclusively mean content removal, though they're doing that, too. (Digression: revisionism & whitewashing are forms of censorship.) Regardless of how they censor or induce self-censorship, they're chilling inoffensive language pointlessly. While as private entities they are free to moderate as they please, it's unnecessary & the effect is an obnoxious affront on self-expression that's contorting language for the sake of avoiding idiotic restrictions.
  • 13 Stimmen
    22 Beiträge
    32 Aufrufe
    T
    You might enjoy this blog post someone linked in another thread earlier today https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-era-of-the-business-idiot/
  • 462 Stimmen
    94 Beiträge
    44 Aufrufe
    L
    Make them publishers or whatever is required to have it be a legal requirement, have them ban people who share false information. The law doesn't magically make open discussions not open. By design, social media is open. If discussion from the public is closed, then it's no longer social media. ban people who share false information Banning people doesn't stop falsehoods. It's a broken solution promoting a false assurance. Authorities are still fallible & risk banning over unpopular/debatable expressions that may turn out true. There was unpopular dissent over covid lockdown policies in the US despite some dramatic differences with EU policies. Pro-palestinian protests get cracked down. Authorities are vulnerable to biases & swayed. Moreover, when people can just share their falsehoods offline, attempting to ban them online is hard to justify. If print media, through its decline, is being held legally responsible Print media is a controlled medium that controls it writers & approves everything before printing. It has a prepared, coordinated message. They can & do print books full of falsehoods if they want. Social media is open communication where anyone in the entire public can freely post anything before it is revoked. They aren't claiming to spread the truth, merely to enable communication.
  • YouTube’s ad blocker crackdown now includes third-party apps

    Technology technology
    2
    1
    0 Stimmen
    2 Beiträge
    0 Aufrufe
    G
    Honestly ads are not bothering me at all. I can wait now, we have to admit that those content creators making type of conent to earn money at first place and we have to support them if they are giving us a quality content. Else there are some modified tools which makes all this easy and effective. Especially there are gaming modifications which makes all the scenarios top notch.