379
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2026
379 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
81869 readers
4699 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
There's a little thing called "free speech". Govt doesn't have the power to regulate speech.
E: Never though I'd live in a world where people were falling over themselves to regulate speech. What a sick sad world it is. Can you just for a millisecond imagine what that looks like when the shoe is on the other foot? What do you think fascists would do with that sort of power?
Sorry what? Tech billionaires don't have to enable the free speech of sexually harassing a child online.
And if your argument is that sexually harassing a child online is "free speech" - and that's the best argument you have - that's not a good argument.
My argument is that it's illegal for the govt to regulate such speech.
What kind of accountability were you referring to? Were you expecting tech billionaires to hold themselves accountable?
The article is from a UK newspaper. What is and isn't legal for them to regulate is decided by their Parliament and nobody else. No Kings, and all that.
Meanwhile, you should know that the "free speech" lectures are getting pretty old from the country that checks social media history at the border to make sure you didn't say anything bad about the Dear Leader, which shuts down TV shows it doesn't like, and generally ensures the media toes the party line.
(See also - lectures on why kids shooting up schools is a necessary price to pay for that well regulated militia that will be along to save you from tyrants, well, real soon now...)
That's also illegal. A rational person would argue to prevent that. An irrational person would suggest that it justifies the regulation of even more speech by an already fascist govt.
Genuinely asking here: do you think the word "illegal" means wrong?
By definition, if a sovereign government decides it's allowed to do something, it's not illegal. You could say it's unethical (though I'm not sure why you would), but you can't say it's illegal.
...no? But I think in this particular instance, obviously yes.
...wat? Why would that be illegal?
Go yell "fire" in a crowded theater, or "i have a bomb" on an airplane and see just how quickly the government regulates your speech.
Common misconception. That's not illegal. Nor is it what's happening.