There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

0x0 ,

Anglos can’t help sexualizing nudity.

NeoNachtwaechter ,

Well said.

I was just starting a long text explaining the same ;-)

LibertyLizard ,

Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. Fuck the censors.

IndiBrony ,
@IndiBrony@lemmy.world avatar

Again remember that freedom of expression is freedom to not be punished by the government for that expression.

Private companies are not concerned with your freedoms.

Not saying I agree with how things are, just saying how it is. Only way to tell a private company to fuck off is to not use them.

LibertyLizard ,

I’m not talking about the US constitution here. I’m saying it is a fundamental human right regardless of the law. What clothing to wear (or not) is part of that freedom.

Private companies should also not restrict fundamental freedoms. I’m aware they’re allowed to currently.

Arkouda ,

The content creators freedom to express directly opposes the hosts freedom of affiliation. Not that I want to defend either company but they do have the right to say what is and is not allowed in their spaces using the same idea of “fundamental human rights”.

It is either that or we have to agree that “fundamental human rights” cannot exist because one groups rights can override the other on social whim.

Every other creator on the planet has to abide by these rules if they want to remain on these platforms and every creator has an option not to use them.

LibertyLizard ,

Frankly, I was mostly mouthing off here, not trying to voice deep moral reasoning but I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I’m actually not sure that fundamental human rights do exist—at least not in all circumstances. As you point out, they sometimes conflict and we need to adjudicate whose rights are more fundamental in a given circumstance.

You have a good point and I generally agree that there does exist a tension here. I think where it breaks down is when a platform becomes so large and dominant that there isn’t really any significant alternative. I think morally, this shifts my reasoning away from just a collection of individuals deciding what they want on their platform towards an almost state-like entity. And with that power dynamic I am much more skeptical of their unilateral authority to control what is or isn’t posted on their platform. Given the size and structure of YouTube, it makes more sense to think of it as space that belongs to and should be managed by the community and with respect for individual rights of expression. And I feel strongly that non-sexual nudity is not only not harmful, but that it is very harmful to repress, as we see in this specific example.

OfCourseNot ,
@OfCourseNot@fedia.io avatar

I don't think freedoms are opposed here. Creators have the freedom to express themselves that freedom just doesn't force anyone to give them a platform. They can use their own or another one that's willing to host their content, which there are many, and then if they, creators or platform, are legally punished it would be a violation of their freedom of expression.

conciselyverbose ,

The issue is that when companies are able to get large enough to control the virtual town square, them censoring people has the same impact as the government censoring people. And especially given the fact that they’re all companies held by literally millions of people, who don’t get input into the speech allowed on the platform, allowing them the “freedom” to restrict speech how they see fit doesn’t make sense.

You don’t have the option to not use major platforms and have your voice heard, because they’ve done the work to make it virtually impossible.

MikeOxlong ,

Won’t one party always have restricted freedom of expression in this situation? The private company wants to express themselves freely by curating the content on their social media platform. The individuals wants to express themselves by posting material of themselves with less clothes than the company wants. These both seem to me as entities wanting to express themselves freely. Which freedom are you most willing to limit?

And if you argue that the freedom of an individual should be valued more than the freedom of a private company, should individual people owning websites have their freedom of curation/expression limited?

LibertyLizard ,

I think these mega-platforms are way too different from an individual’s website to make that equivalence. The dominant social media companies are, as Elon Musk eloquently put it before shitting all over his own moral principles, more akin to a town square than a back yard. The fact that they are privately owned is a corruption resulting from our authoritarian legal structure—it doesn’t make them morally equivalent to a website I use and produce by myself.

YouTube is a place that tolerates almost any viewpoint or type of content. No one thinks that they actively support or endorse this content. In fact, US law explicitly exempts them from being responsible for it. If that’s the case, why should we grant them the authority to decide what should or shouldn’t be posted there?

Now, there is certainly content, in contrast to non-sexual nudity, that does direct harm, and I support the removal of such content. But either way, I don’t think YouTube deserves the unilateral authority to decide what that looks like. I’d much rather see it managed communally and democratically.

OfCourseNot ,
@OfCourseNot@fedia.io avatar

There is not a fundamental right to use other people's platform for your expression. That's not what freedom of expression means.

LibertyLizard ,

I reject the premise that YouTube belongs to the executives or shareholders at Alphabet. It is a community platform at this point, and its management should reflect that.

If Alphabet happened to own an entire city I would also oppose their right to restrict expression there. Once a space, physical or digital, comes to be used in certain ways, it should no longer anyone’s personal property.

JackGreenEarth ,

Another reason to not use big media, but to use the fediverse instead.

MerchantsOfMisery ,

Big media = big reach, compromises made. Fediverse = tiny reach, fewer compromises made. I can see why Indigenous folks choose the former over the latter.

Live_Let_Live ,

Welcome true, hope you enjoy your stay!

True OP ,
@True@lemy.lol avatar

This is actually my second account :)

I deleted my first account after hearing about lemmy privacy issues and then I recreated my account to start fresh.

I am using every reddit alternative I know currently, hopefully one of them go mainstream.

seaQueue ,
@seaQueue@lemmy.world avatar

Lemmy’s in a pretty good place these days, if there’s any hangup to more adoption it’s the hurdle of understanding federation as a concept and the big time sink of building your subscription list at the beginning. As much as I hated Reddit’s default list of subs I kinda think Lemmy could use something similar to help onboard new users more effectively.

TriflingToad ,

I think it needs more of a home page compared to what Lemmy has. Shows newer subs to more people. Also an option to limit how much political stuff you see, thats what scares a lot of ppl off.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •