Just to say the corps thinking they need a fediverse presence shows this is growing
I have noticed that, at least in Mastodon, the fediverse seems to be significantly more pro active transport. I’d gander this is because this really has expanded to the “masses” yet, but it is really nice to see our favorite orange youtuber and other like minded individuals actively posting frequently.
I don’t think, that’s a good idea, it just screams virtue signaling to me. Also it’s pretty anti freedom of speech. This is just so childish, it’s embarrassing.
@Overthr0w @uthredii
Or is it actually Free Speech?
The right to hear as well as the right not to hear, as decided by a private invidual or organisation.he is not just deciding for himself, he is also deciding for others in this case. If he would have just blocked them, that would have been his choice. But he is also making a choice in others’ stead. And that has nothing to do with freedom, the others can make a choice on their own. I feel like the term freedom of speech has been degenerated to a tool to push ones own agenda. People try to suppress other opinions, which leads to lack of discourse and radicalization.
@Overthr0w
Yes, he’s deciding for other people who use the platform. It’s called Moderation.
It means that users don’t have to spend their time blocking stuff and can get on with enjoying the platform.
This is not the same as the government blocking everyone’s access to something. Where nobody can see certain content. That may be a free speech issue. If you want to see car company’s PR, then there are hundreds of other platforms you can go to.
This is free speech. The right to hear as well as not hear on a PRIVATE platform.I think, that’s an example of excessive moderation. While I understand that most people will not be interested in the content that capitalistic institutions provide, I think, censorship should only be supported, where it is absolutely necessary, eg: disturbing things, abuse and crime glorifying content. I also think that most people won’t see their content, as they will not likely partake in car subs. And if they invade other subs comments, they can still be downvoted democratically, thus decreasing their visibility.
@Overthr0w @MrLee Ford’s revenues for the first quarter of 2023 were US$41.5 billion.
The big auto companies have more than enough resources to set up their own instances, if they so wish.
There’s no obligation on a privately-owned instance to host their accounts. He can moderate his instance how he wishes. He can allow who he likes on his instance.
(Out of curiosity, did these car companies offer to pay any of his hosting costs?)
If you don’t agree with his moderation decisions, you don’t have to use his instance, or use an instance that federates with his.
As for free speech, I don’t see any government action or any legislation that compels this decision.
I just think, that excluding specific people that have not actually done anything wrong yet(at least on this platform) will lead to a homogeneous userbase. And even if he is not obliged to host anyone, I think it would be a way smarter decision if someone, who is aware of their danger, is hosting them. That person could later moderate their usage of their accounts, if they overstep certain limits way sooner than someone hosting them on another instance.
@Overthr0w @uthredii they can go use a different instance then I guess 🤷♀️