News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in f... by shapefrog on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @06:30AM (#33786225)
Im not saying someone should kill you, but people take matters into their own hands all the time and I wouldnt be sorry and would even look favourably on the person that did so if it removed you from the gene pool.

Not illegal.

Re:UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in f... by mrtksn on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @06:36AM (#33786277)
This sounds like there might be a tangible risk for me because its written from a position of person with influence OR simply a rambling of an internet hobo if its written by a nobody therefore no risk. Also, am I a known person who might be located and harmed by a fan of this high influence person?

I guess, it depends. I wouldn't want it removed unless it has realistic risk of making someone harm me. It would serve as a record that I can use to build my narrative when discussing stuff.

Re:UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in f... by shapefrog on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @06:48AM (#33786371)
What if Alex Jones wrote it ... What if TikTok famous for dancing with rabbid fanbase wrote it?
Re:UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in f... by mrtksn on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @06:50AM (#33786384)
Then I probably want it removed.
Re:UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in f... by Ensorceled on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @06:52AM (#33786405)
Ok ... but what if _you_ were getting dozens of these a day, from an endless stream of terrible people who are openly celebrating a genocide against your ancestors?
Re:UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in f... by mrtksn on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @06:56AM (#33786429)
Define “getting”. Are they sending me direct messages?
Re:UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in f... by Ensorceled on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @08:56AM (#33787575)
This answers my question, thanks.
Re:UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in f... by mrtksn on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @09:08AM (#33787738)
It doesn't actually. You need to define what getting stream of dozens of people celebrating a genocide means because the appropriate action will depend on it.

Is it an organised campaign? Is it you being targeted because of who you are? Is it happening on 4chan? Is it happening in a whatsapp group? What are the nature of the content? Do they claim stuff about you? Do they threaten you? Are they writing alternative history?

Simply deleting doesn't help with anything. Remember PewDiePie who was cancelled for making antisemitic jokes? He probably didn't know what he was doing because of his perspective there are no more nazis around and all that stuff is history from 50 years ago so it's just a joke. Deleting content gives the impression that these don't exist or that it's not a real danger.

Re:UK ditches ban on 'legal but harmful' online content in f... by mrguyorama on Tuesday November 29, 2022 @04:34PM (#33793652)
That's a poor take. PewDiePie ABSOLUTELY knew what he was doing. He simply banked on it being edgy enough to only piss off some people. He knows his numbers and analytics, he knows straddling the line between what is acceptable or not gets the most outrage, clickbait, and views.

Meanwhile a history teacher and film maker on youtube dresses up as a literal nazi in several videos, including swastika, and does not get cancelled because it's pretty good satire.

Freedom of speech means you get to tell any joke you want, but freedom of speech does not mean people have to treat your actions as a joke just because you meant it as a joke. You don't get to be the sole arbiter of the "goodness" of your actions, because not meaning to hurt people doesn't let you off the hook for hurting people.