• kn98English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    It seems to me that’s it’s often the conspiracy-theorists that get shadowbanned.

    • Dr. MooseEnglish
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      You have real stats to back that claim? Because leaving this up to benevolent dictators is kinda silly.

      • kn98English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        No stats at all, I just got that impression. It’s silly, but it’s often argued that social media are private platforms, that can decide themselves what content they allow. Do you suggest laws against shadowbanning should be a thing? I’m not sure that’s a good idea.

        • Dr. MooseEnglish
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          0
          ·
          5 months ago
          edit-2
          5 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          It’s unrelated to the current topic but yes. Terms of service should be both ways. We already do that for user data through GDPR and similar laws and inevitably all users will have more rights including right to transparency.

          I find it kinda funny that you argue against this on a platform that was founded because reddit was extremely opaque. We even have a transparent mod log here. So you really need more examples that transparency is good?

        • VirtualOdourEnglish
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          0
          ·
          5 months ago
          edit-2
          5 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          Nestle is a private company and buying up everyone’s water to sell back to them is their choice

          Private companies shouldn’t get to do whatever they like.

          I agree shadow banning should be illegal, along with various other policies which can cause psychological and material damage.