this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024
90 points (97.9% liked)

Privacy

32051 readers
1201 users here now

A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.

Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.

In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.

Some Rules

Related communities

Chat rooms

much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I agree, but I think it is more complex than that. There are limits to free speech already. I agree that no one country should be able to censor others, but what about content that is illegally produced in that country.

So if terrorist training videos were made in Australia, could banning them from distribution mean they could prosecute fitter for distributing them? How about csam? How about China prosecutes for ibfro about Tiananmen. What about CSAM?

So objectively there are things some countries would want banned, but not all. Some that all might agree to ban. Classifying it might help but might that be more of an invasion of privacy? The web is built on lots of open protocols that assume good actors and no malicious intent. We are now adding protocols that increase privacy and security on top. Even something like the fediverse is a good example of the trade off between being public and being anonymous and being private. You can't have it all.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Geoblocking is a better solution. Just don't store that content in Australia and block it from coming in.

Everything on the internet is effectively permanent anyway

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Holding social media companies responsible for the content they host is a better solution in my view. We hold newspapers responsible. Why not social media? Yes, moderation is expensive but they are wildly profitable, musk aside.

They don't need to moderate everything, as the content volume is high, but they certainly could manually moderate all content that reaches a certain threshd. They choose not to and hide behind their users sharing as a reason.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

That would be very bad for free speech. Companies would not take any chances and would remove any content that could remotely bring them trouble. I'm sure there would be lots of bad takedowns and it would be abused just like the DMCA.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 2 points 5 months ago

Depending on private companies for free speech is bad for free speech in and of itself. So either course has negatives, which means the course with leqsr negative outcomes is best. If they over moderate, they lose users. If they undermoderate they face fines. I'm sure the market force will mean they do whatever is most profitable.

[–] Tempo@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 months ago

The eSafety commission argued that "well everyone just uses VPNs anyway so it won't matter"