"I can't post racist, sexist, homophobic and transphobic bullshit to Lemmy without getting banned? CENSORSHIP! WE GOT CENSORSHIP OVER HERE!" -OP probably
What’s wrong is that the Tory government has been in power for over a decade and thinks they can get away with increasingly authoritarian legislation like this
each instance and community has their own policy. you have to either follow it or if you disagree, you’re free to create your own. you can’t do that in Facebook or whatever. so no, just because a random post was removed from a certain instance, it doesn’t mean Lemmy is censored at all.
Moderation has always been required on the net. It is only a question by whom and for whom. To participate in any social setting either IRL or on the net, you need to conform to the expectations of that community. If you choose to do otherwise then you can expect consequences. What is shocking about this?
Isn’t one of the chief selling points of the Fediverse that you can’t be censored because there’s always some instance that will welcome you? Another USP is that the rest of us don’t have to read it if we don’t want to.
You get freedom of speech and we get freedom from that speech (assuming it’s objectionable, and I have yet to see one of these posts where some complains about being stopped from posting funny cat memes).
Its their platform . its their choice. We don’t have a choice to force them to allow adblockers. There is always a choice to load content after the ads are served . If they go that route then no adblocker can bypass it.
Twitch would like to have a word with you, the ads are still shown even with the latest ublock filters. Google absolutely can shove ads into your face that your ad blocker won’t be able to remove, they just don’t do it for now
Twitch is live streaming which is what probably makes it a challenge to block ads, and the main draw of twitch is watching live content. I’d imagine it’s easier to view content that isn’t live without ads, and people do repost clips after it’s aired where people haven’t encountered ads in contrast to live viewers.
Then look at television piracy where live viewing will have ads, but pirated content is uploaded with it stripped away. Blocking ads will be something YouTube will have to keep fighting endlessly.
EU bullied sites into showing cookies warnings even on sites outside of EU. In effing Russia of all places too. You’d think, with enough torque, anything can be pushed onto them. Even good things.
It’s their choice, and I would simply not use YouTube. Access to YouTube specifically is not very concerning to me.
But if they try to normalize this or even attempt to influence legislators that adblockers should be restricted in any way by law, then I would be concerned, and for this reason I think it’s important to articulate right now that there is nothing inherently wrong or unethical about using an adblocker.
Not even Microsoft in its monolith days was able to spend enough money to stop a legion of angry nerds with a severe case of "fuck you, you can't tell me what to do".
So, they’ve already won. They just haven’t turned on the nuclear option yet.
They recently added what amounts to drm for the entire Internet to chrome, it is a way for them to disallow access to YouTube and other services via anything but an approved browser. This would include approved extensions.
So I’ll use something that isn’t chrome? Well, they will just block Firefox from YouTube. Making chrome and chrome derivatives via its Internet drm the only option.
Eh, probably. But it’s for fighting those darned internet pirates, and the only body that seems to protect us anymore, the eu, seems to be all for that. So I’m.not expecting anything good
They are all for copyright protection, the current copyright reform act proposes automatic scanners installed to prevent copywritten content from being displayed without authorization
That would be easy to challenge under the same reasoning as what's in the article, not to mention various anti-trust laws and ones covering anti-competitive business practices.
Doesn't mean it's guaranteed to stop them, but it's definitely not going to be as easy as them flipping a few switches and saying "watch ads on our browser with no addons or GTFO".
They killed Netscape and had to put in a toggle with the option of other browsers like 10 years later. They paid next to nothing in fines and legal battles, basically putting a stranglehold on the internet itself that took another 10 to kinda of undo.
Even in the US, a corporate monopoly trying to force people to use their browser will trigger an antitrust lawsuit from the government. Microsoft has already faced one for what they did with Edge, and they didn’t even do DRM.
Besides, it’s YouTube. If you can’t use it anymore, it’s not gonna be the end of the world.
It’s not that simple, it’s not forcing everyone to use chrome, it’s denying access to copyrighted material to drmed browsers only. This is something that already happens and no one seems to want to break things up around that. Infaft they seem to legislate more for that.
And sure today it’s youtube, but this is actually a form of drm for everything. Today youtube tomorrow everything else.
I stopped using Chrome about 3 weeks ago. Used Edge for a while but finding out that is Chromium, I landed back on Firefox after 10 years of not using it. Just moved all my bookmarks and plugins.
Why? Principles the moment people force me to use their software is the moment I leave.
It’s characteristic of all forms of totalitarian leadership. The communism/UK comparison is wrong because we don’t have a ruling party that shares any of the main traits of communism.
Maybe do your research first before claiming to know something. Communism at it’s core is when no private property exist and basically everything is “owned” by the whole community equally. Hence the name communism. Censorship has nothing to do with that. It just so happens every state which was “communistic” (none of these really were communistic) had strong censorship. This is what we call correlation. What you mean is causality which means there is proof the two observation are directly linked.
privacyguides
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.