3 ms·

>If I’m queer and Facebook is actively censoring queer content then that’s more significant to me than just being a difference of opinion. The company is active

>If I’m queer and Facebook is actively censoring queer content then that’s more significant to me than just being a difference of opinion. The company is actively suppressing my way of life. Why queer community will not find an alternative app?

ModernMech 10mo ago
Why should they have to?
- high_na_euv 10mo ago
  If they believe that current app is censoring them, then moving to queer friendly solution seems to solve this issue, right? Like not every social media is good for everything Top software engineering content is also not on facebook
  - ModernMech 10mo ago
    No, because then what happens when the place they move to starts censoring them as well? Then all the places start censoring them? You're basically arguing for "separate but equal", and we know how that works out. The correct move is to fight for your rights, not to assuage bigotry. But answer the question, why should they have to?
    - high_na_euv 10mo ago
      Why would they be obligated to host/serve you? Just like restaurant owner can kick you, they also can. If you dont agree with it, then vote for social media being treated as infrastructure like roads
      - ModernMech 10mo ago
        They are not obligated, I'm not saying they're obligated. Although restaurant owners can't discriminate, we have laws against that. What I'm asking you is: why should they have to find a new place?
        high_na_euv 10mo ago
        If they believe that current app is censoring them, then moving to queer friendly solution seems to solve this issue, right?
        ModernMech 10mo ago
        You already said that. It does not answer the question. Moving to another app doesn't solve anything, because we still haven't answered the question of why they should have had to move in the first place! It's the same situation if they move to a new app, nothing has changed. At this point we have gone in a circle, I must assume I won't get a genuine answer to the only thing I have asked despite trying to engage genuinely in conversation. Have a good day.
        high_na_euv 10mo ago
        But I already answered it, twice! If they believe that someone is harming them, then they should stay with them?
        deleted 10mo ago
        [deleted]
    - rtp4me 10mo ago
      And you are arguing every business must support your agenda, and if not, they are your "enemy"? What an odd take. Again, you are free to use other means of social media to spread your message but no one is obligated to read or support it. And, that does not make them the enemy.
      - ModernMech 10mo ago
        You're confused, I didn't actually make that argument.
afavour 10mo ago
This is the incredibly profitable contradiction Facebook lives in. They do everything they can to become the central place for online communication and profit enormously from that. But they reject any of the responsibility that ought to come along with that, the refrain being what you're saying here: "well, you can always just go somewhere else" Except that when online communication is as deeply siloed as it is it's extremely difficult to set up an alternative. How will people even find out about it when their entire online lives are lived on Facebook? This capture is exactly what Meta wants. Remember internet.org? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet.org https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet.org Picking and choosing which services people can use is Zuckerberg's explicit goal.

ModernMech 10mo ago

Why should they have to?

high_na_euv 10mo ago
If they believe that current app is censoring them, then moving to queer friendly solution seems to solve this issue, right? Like not every social media is good for everything Top software engineering content is also not on facebook
- ModernMech 10mo ago
  No, because then what happens when the place they move to starts censoring them as well? Then all the places start censoring them? You're basically arguing for "separate but equal", and we know how that works out. The correct move is to fight for your rights, not to assuage bigotry. But answer the question, why should they have to?
  - high_na_euv 10mo ago
    Why would they be obligated to host/serve you? Just like restaurant owner can kick you, they also can. If you dont agree with it, then vote for social media being treated as infrastructure like roads
    - ModernMech 10mo ago
      They are not obligated, I'm not saying they're obligated. Although restaurant owners can't discriminate, we have laws against that. What I'm asking you is: why should they have to find a new place?
      - high_na_euv 10mo ago
        If they believe that current app is censoring them, then moving to queer friendly solution seems to solve this issue, right?
        ModernMech 10mo ago
        You already said that. It does not answer the question. Moving to another app doesn't solve anything, because we still haven't answered the question of why they should have had to move in the first place! It's the same situation if they move to a new app, nothing has changed. At this point we have gone in a circle, I must assume I won't get a genuine answer to the only thing I have asked despite trying to engage genuinely in conversation. Have a good day.
        high_na_euv 10mo ago
        But I already answered it, twice! If they believe that someone is harming them, then they should stay with them?
        deleted 10mo ago
        [deleted]
  - rtp4me 10mo ago
    And you are arguing every business must support your agenda, and if not, they are your "enemy"? What an odd take. Again, you are free to use other means of social media to spread your message but no one is obligated to read or support it. And, that does not make them the enemy.
    - ModernMech 10mo ago
      You're confused, I didn't actually make that argument.

afavour 10mo ago

This is the incredibly profitable contradiction Facebook lives in. They do everything they can to become the central place for online communication and profit enormously from that. But they reject any of the responsibility that ought to come along with that, the refrain being what you're saying here: "well, you can always just go somewhere else" Except that when online communication is as deeply siloed as it is it's extremely difficult to set up an alternative. How will people even find out about it when their entire online lives are lived on Facebook? This capture is exactly what Meta wants. Remember internet.org? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet.org https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet.org Picking and choosing which services people can use is Zuckerberg's explicit goal.