this post was submitted on 29 Aug 2025
814 points (99.9% liked)

Technology

74700 readers
2944 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sqgl@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

The ideal of free speech is a naive fantasy especially with social media which can amplify the craziest of ideas which can go viral.

Yes the Left has gone overboard with their thought policing however the right wing in want their personal bigotry to be allowed and nobody else (no mention of DEI in USA government institutions allowed). The Left want free speech for everyone except the bigots but then their definition of bigots becomes a slippery slope.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I mushed a lot of things together in my post. Copyright and political censorship have very different motives behind them. The point is that, to enforce copyright, you need extensive surveillance of online content and the means to shut down the exchange of information. That requires an extremely expensive technical infrastructure. But once that is in place, you can use it for political censorship without having to fear pushback over the economic cost that would come even from politically sympathetic actors. Conversely, if you introduce political censorship, you might get support by the copyright industry, including the news media, for helping their economic interests.

Where it gets to political censorship, the paradox of tolerance is exactly the lunacy that I'm talking about. In mad defiance of all historical fact, there is belief that liberalism is weak, that political dissidents must be persecuted, information suppressed. Never in history has democracy fallen because of a commitment to tolerance. All too often, they fall because majorities feel their personal comfort threatened by minorities and support the strong leader who will "sweep out with the iron broom" (as a German idiom goes).

Do you notice how that Wikipedia article has nothing to say on history?

[–] sqgl@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Conversely, if you introduce political censorship, you might get support by the copyright industry, including the news media, for helping their economic interests.

Never occurred to me. Interesting point to ponder.

"sweep out with the iron broom"

The would-be fascists don't want democracy. Note how Trump is softening up the public by using the term fascism lately.

Good essay:

The goal is to shift the Overton window: dictatorship is not a threat, but a regrettable necessity... dictatorship as safety, democracy as danger.

https://michaeldsellers.substack.com/p/trump-says-americans-would-rather