Starlink is refusing to comply with Brazil's X ban (Update: Starlink will comply) - eviltoast
  • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Prosecution implies a trial before punishment. Censorship is immediate punishment based solely on the judgment of the authorities. That’s not a minor difference.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Exactly. If a judge states that an individual is no longer allowed on SM, then I absolutely understand banning the account and removing their posts. However, until justice has been served, it’s 100% the platform’s call, and I think platforms should err on the side of allowing speech.

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I realize I’m jumping back and forth between sides here, but that’s because it’s a complex problem and I haven’t made my mind up. But that said, to return to the previous point…if you need a court order to ban every spammer and troll, you’ll drown in spam and propaganda. The legal system can’t keep up.

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’m not saying companies should need a court order, only that they should only be obligated to remove content by a court order, and ideally they’d lean toward keeping content than removing it. I think it’s generally better for platforms to enable users to hide content they don’t want to see instead of outright removing it for everyone. One person’s independent journalism is another person’s propaganda, and I generally don’t trust big tech companies with agendas to decide between the two.