• Overthr0w@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t think, that’s a good idea, it just screams virtue signaling to me. Also it’s pretty anti freedom of speech. This is just so childish, it’s embarrassing.

      • Overthr0w@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        he is not just deciding for himself, he is also deciding for others in this case. If he would have just blocked them, that would have been his choice. But he is also making a choice in others’ stead. And that has nothing to do with freedom, the others can make a choice on their own. I feel like the term freedom of speech has been degenerated to a tool to push ones own agenda. People try to suppress other opinions, which leads to lack of discourse and radicalization.

        • Lee 🌏@aus.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          @Overthr0w
          Yes, he’s deciding for other people who use the platform. It’s called Moderation.
          It means that users don’t have to spend their time blocking stuff and can get on with enjoying the platform.
          This is not the same as the government blocking everyone’s access to something. Where nobody can see certain content. That may be a free speech issue. If you want to see car company’s PR, then there are hundreds of other platforms you can go to.
          This is free speech. The right to hear as well as not hear on a PRIVATE platform.