1169
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Saledovil@sh.itjust.works 14 points 2 years ago

It's a lot more banal, though. Youtube has to sell advertising, and advertisers don't want to be next to discussions of rape or suicide. These restrictions are enforced algorithmically, hence the self-censorship. And in any case, it doesn't achieve the objective of newspeak, as those concepts are still being discussed.

[-] pfaca@lemm.ee 7 points 2 years ago

And in any case, it doesn't achieve the objective of newspeak, as those concepts are still being discussed.

Yet.

But I get what you are saying. I just find the similarities, although banal, kind of funny. In a scary kind of way.

[-] DogWater@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

I don't think it's right to divorce the censorship from the result just because the justification is different.

What I mean is that even though that conditioning is taking place for a banal reason it's still true that it's conditioning and will affect the acceptance of moves like this debate fact checking decision that are serious and do have consequences. So therefore it still matters and is still dangerous.

this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2024
1169 points (97.9% liked)

People Twitter

10387 readers
1361 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major celebrity, figure or any politician. https://web.archive.org/save is an option. Archive.is is no longer recommended because they remove/alter content.
  7. If a tweet (or similar) makes a statement of fact, either mark it as "satire" in the body or provide the original source link backing up the statement

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS