Technology

58135 readers

4607 users here now

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

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

267

Indigenous creators are clashing with YouTube’s and Instagram’s sensitive content bans. (restofworld.org)

submitted 4 weeks ago by True@lemy.lol to c/technology@lemmy.world

59 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 2 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

In the EU, that is not the case. If Facebook decided that people are allowed to talk about Macron, but not about LePen, it would violate users' right to protected political speech. And any moderation decisions decided by that policy could be challenged by regulators.

Providing a social media platform is a business in the EU, it is not protected speech. Platforms have a lot of leeway to moderate communities, but they are not allowed to infringe on human rights in their moderation.

Here is the Council of Europe's opinion on it:

Your Internet service provider and your provider of online content and services have corporate responsibilities to respect your human rights and provide mechanisms to respond to your claims. You should be aware, however, that online service providers, such as social networks, may restrict certain types of content and behaviour due to their content policies. You should be informed of possible restrictions so that you are able to take an informed decision as to whether to use the service or not. This includes specific information on what the online service provider considers as illegal or inappropriate content and behaviour when using the service and how it is dealt with by the provider.

Here is the EU's moderation database that they use to regulate online moderation, they have recorded over 11 billion moderation decisions made in the EU in the last 6 months.

https://transparency.dsa.ec.europa.eu/

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca -3 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

The topic is "Indigenous Brazilian Content creators" not being allowed to post non sexual nudity on American owned platforms. It is not what the EU is doing with human rights.

Do try to keep up. This is the second time you have used my comment to soap box off topic non sense, and the second time I am calling you out for it.

[–] jlh@lemmy.jlh.name 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Bull fucking shit. Your argument was that corporate "rights" trump human rights, and I went and showed you that other cultures disagree with you on that. Stop turning everything into a debate.

[–] Arkouda@lemmy.ca -4 points 4 weeks ago

Bull fucking shit. Your argument was that corporate “rights” trump human rights, and I went and showed you that other cultures disagree with you on that. Stop turning everything into a debate.

Not at all what I said, and I am in no way arguing with you because you have no point to make relevant to the topic.

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.

Here is what I said. You should learn to read before you try to write.