EU absolutely is a country.
No. How much shit do we need to ban before you dumb fucks understand prohibition never fucking works and only fuels more crime.
Two points:
- Can you unban abortion and harder drugs then please?
- Gun/ammunition banning/control has been shown to drastically reduce mass murders and shootings. Similar to how needing a license to drive a car has dramatically increased road safety.
Hahaha stfu needing a license drastically increased road saftey??? Did they even keep stats when they started requiring licenses, you fucking dolt.
You’re right as far as road fatalities weren’t systematically collected by the Yank government until 1960, 7 years after the last state made driving licences mandatory. But, we have material such as this 1930s Reader’s Digest on road accidents and safety, and if I thought you were much more than a troll I might see if anyone’s done an obituary analysis for the 1920s - 1950s on road deaths… But:
😘
Still a dumb fucking argument. Thanks for wasting your time to prove that. 👏👏
Yeah banning handguns didn’t work at all for us fucksake, even the ducks are packing now
China banned many foreign services and made their own substitutes. What crime is being fueled? Bypassing the great firewall using VPNs is insignificant because most people are on the recommended domestic social media. This way China shut out most of enemy manipulation and propaganda, which is why I support the ban in the EU.
Are you trolling or are you really that fucking naive?
100% yes. They have shown time and time again to do whatever the fuck they like with no regard to laws.
i live in Brazil, and would be 100% down with X being banned, even Instagram or Facebook if necessary.
I am American so I can’t really answer but what would count as American social media?
I feel like it would be most large social network sites and an unpredictable amount of smaller ones
monopolistic social media owned by big tech american companies, like X, Instagram and Facebook.
…can you help ban them in the US, too, please?
No. And I would continue helping people evade whatever censorship a government tries to impose on them.
Not censoring content, just banning the giant-corp black-box feed shaping algorithms pushing fascist propaganda.
I’m way too familiar with liberals labeling everything they don’t like as “fascist propaganda” :)
So, still no.
Based
I sure hope everyone who wants to ban these things actually has plans to create their own content or Lemmy’s gonna become quite empty.
empty-er
Surely squeezing people out of social media giants would bring many more people to Lemmy?
naah fuck that, I think the internet should go back to being as unregulated and wild as possible
Removed by mod
People have lost their minds because of a recommender algorithm and echo chambers. Ai agents are going to tear us to shreds.
That means no big platforms, but instead smaller niche sites.
If big US tech companies exist, we can’t have a wild and free web.
Why would I do that?
For-profit social media, certainly. I don’t trust it anymore. Astroturfing, data-harvesting, I feel like they’re all made to fuck us over in some way.
Astroturfing, data-harvesting, I feel like they’re all made to fuck us over in some way.
Voice of Ron Howard cuts in: “They were.”
Agreed
no, i support an open internet. censorship is stupid and generally easily worked around. which usually leads to an escalation to make it more and more difficult, until you have chinese-style internet.
The aim of the ban is not censorship – it’s to free ourselves from the purposely biased feed shaping algorithms mass-manipulating our populace. The content would be allowed, but it would be promoted by human upvotes, not corporate and CIA interests.
So not easy to work around and by far most of the population will not do it, so are not exposed to whatever is blocked, so the blockage works…?
I would not. Why? It won’t fix anything. People would just switch to TikTok or Telegram or something, which is not that much better
Surely the banning government would recommend Loops, Pixelfed, Lemmy, Mastodon, and Signal.
EUian here. I tend to say no, with a big “but” (insert Sir Mix-a-Lot joke here): I would expect legislation to govern effective content moderation by the platforms. No cutting corners to save money.
I’ve heard some great ideas around making algorithms open, splitting platforms apart (Meta world have to divest one of Instagram or Facebook), and splitting businesses apart (Google search would need separate ownership from YouTube), etc.
I’d tolerate it, but not support it. Forcefully taking them away gains these platforms even more support and demand. Only when people seek for alternatives or a change on their own, we can solve the problems.
One way to promote alternatives is to make those platforms harder to use.
I don’t consider that promotion. Think from the perspective of the people who happily use US big corpo social media. When you’re forced to consume B, because A is banned, you’re likely not giving B a fair chance, even if it would have otherwise convinced you.
(Obviously you must still enforce rules and ban the platforms that don’t abide.)
UK, and no, censorship is bad, especially if it’s controlled by a capitalist government.
Only if it’s a capitalist government? So you’re okay with censorship by fascist, socialist, communist and totalitarian governments?
Fascism is a form of capitalism.
As @flying_gel@lemmy.world pointed out, I said “especially”, and that is because capitalist governments are incentivised to use censorship in a uniquely negative way against workers.
In theory socialist and communist governments should only employ censorship to protect workers, but history has shown that in practice that isn’t always the case and, as Maxim Gorky pointed out, even when it is, it often creates more problems than it solves.
They said “especially”, not “only”. your question is still partly valid why he would be “more ok” with other types of governmental structures.
But… the foreign black-box feed shaping algorithms are controlled by oligarch capitalists, and they are doing shadow-censorship. Ever thought about why Brexit won?
If you banned the giant social media platforms, people would come to Lemmy, freeing themselves from what you say is bad.
That’s a double edged sword right there. If you don’t allow external influences, you block both good and bad types of conversations. What you’re left with is only the local conversation, which might be balanced or biased depending on where you live.
If you live under a dictatorship, you might really want some of that external influence. If you can trust that the local conversation is good and balanced, banning Twitter and Meta won’t have any serious drawbacks.
The question is not about banning foreigners from our social media, it’s about banning foreign-controlled social media. The Americans can join us here on Lemmy.
Commercial social media platforms already mark certain conversations as bad and censor them. Both Zuckerberg and Musk seem to have political goals and have changed how their platforms work to promote them.
If they were a free marketplace of ideas, I’d agree. But while Facebook is hiding news in Canada, YouTube is promoting rage-bait, and Twitter is making weird tweaks for Musk’s self confidence, they seem like they’re trying to promote a US worldview.
It’d be interesting to see what would replace them if they weren’t available.
I’ve also noticed that every LLM I’ve used has a political agenda of some sort. If you try to make it write material of controversial or questionable nature, you’ll run into some issues. You’ll also notice, that many LLMs prefer to give everything a rather wholesome twist whenever possible. Not really a bad thing IMO, but I must say that these tools are not completely neutral when it comes to sensitive matters. Personally, I don’t really have a problem with these moral preferences, but I also know some people who most certainly do.
When companies have a vast multinational audience, they need to consider these kinds of matters. It applies to social media companies too, and they already have experience with this, while various LLM companies are still learning this game. We’ve already seen how social media platforms have been used to promote the agenda of the company behind them, and I believe we’ll see the same with LLMs. Once LLMs become an inseparable part of everyday life, there will be more political pressure to push a specific narrative to the users, just like there currently is with social media platforms.
