• Thorry84@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      They are getting downvoted because they are making a bad faith argument. They state banning a for profit website for not complying with the laws is somehow equal to censorship, this is obviously not true.

      • Geometrinen_Gepardi@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        I don’t care if they pull the plug on Twitter. My point was that if the EU bans one website, it sets a precedent for the future where it’s easier to do it again. The rules that could lead to Twitter being banned today might be sane but who knows about the future? Maybe they start blanket banning Lemmy or Mastodon instances if the fediverse grows so large that moderation can’t keep up?

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 months ago

        When done by the government, yes it is. When done by multinational mega corporations, yes it is. When a teacher takes the swear words out of a school play, it’s not a big deal.

    • 14th_cylon@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      No, he is being downvoted for pretending that enforcing rules = censorship… Which is common spin attempt of assholes thinking rules don’t apply to them.

      • PaellaVacuum@reddeet.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        He’s not “pretending”, that’s literally all censorship is. If censorship is not enforced it’s just a localised ban.