this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2025
297 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

76134 readers
3054 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. 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.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

I would normally be sympathetic to their stand except earlier this year when this first started, they called on Trump to use all available political leverages to prevent this and protect free speech. Calling on Trump to protect free speech is just absolutely ridiculous.

[–] ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online 7 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I never thought I'd be siding with 4chan.

Just to let you know I was never a 4chan user.

[–] madjo@feddit.nl 5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

That's exactly what a 4chan user would say... *narrows eyes in suspicion*

[–] ArmchairAce1944@discuss.online 1 points 3 hours ago

I love you, my coin operated boy!

[–] Soulg@ani.social 5 points 3 hours ago
[–] nutsack@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 5 hours ago (1 children)
[–] webp@mander.xyz 3 points 5 hours ago

At least they are a little less fucked now lmao

[–] Harbinger01173430@lemmy.world 4 points 5 hours ago

United Kondom

[–] hanrahan@slrpnk.net 38 points 10 hours ago

Welp, i agree with 4chan.

[–] DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 24 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Inb4 major Lemmy instances get banned

[–] roserose56@lemmy.zip 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

Let's start with who they going to fine, and which domains will they Ban!
But yea, it could happen.

[–] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 57 points 19 hours ago (10 children)

Having Fedi folks agreeing with 4chan is not on my bingo card this year, or ever.

[–] Cornpop@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

Deferent but similar

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] spez@sh.itjust.works 54 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

I might not like what you have to say, but I'll defend to death, your right to say it kinda shit

[–] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 14 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

Within reason. Libel, incitement to violence, hate speech, etc, should be illegal for obvious reasons

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 3 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

Maybe, but what about when governments start saying being anti-israel is hate speech?

Once your govt has been captured by foreign interests, it doesn't really matter what laws are on the books anyway, they'll find a way to screw you over.

[–] hayvan@feddit.nl 1 points 1 hour ago

Early this year Rümeysa Öztürk was kidnapped and deported from USA with precisely that excuse. Anti-Israel hence pro Hamas hence enemy of USA.

[–] nekbardrun@lemmy.world 13 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

There is an obvious reason why countries like Germany make a strong stance against any "trolling" nazi joke/imagery/salute.

But America's First Amendment seems to not understand that reason (or only understand when it is weaponized against communism, black people, trans rights and all the "woke culture" stuff)

[–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

America's first amendment doesn't grant a total right to free speech. Conspiracy to commit murder is just speech, but is very much illegal, and so is copyright infringement.

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 10 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Everyone has a different definition, but yeah generally free speech in an ideal sense extends to just before you start causing what a reasonable person would concern harm to someone.

[–] FelixCress@lemmy.world 6 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Fuck that. People spreading racial hate and public lies with the intention to mislead the public should be locked up.

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I would say intent matters and while it's impossible to truly determine it, we still have a distinction for murder/manslaughter and negligence.

If a politician lies or hides something for personal gain, that should be illegal, but there's so much stuff the state does where it's best if the general public don't know, public order would probably break down pretty quickly otherwise.

Same with racial hate. If it's just stating an opinion, fine, I probably don't agree but go ahead. If you're actively trying to harm (mentally, economically, socially or physically) that group, or inciting others to do the same, then that's not fine.

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 5 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I can't think of where "racial hate" could possibly be "just stating an opinion" without also causing harm that is both mental and social.

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

It depends how you define "racial hate" and how you define mental or social harm. I also do mean social harm, not societal, meaning to catch things like sunset communities (ie restricting where people can live, or where they can go), rather than "society is worse off because of people's opinions."

Again, in my opinion, it depends on intent. If you make a post on your blog with 200 followers saying "I'm tired of X race moving to my city," I don't think that should be illegal, even if it is disgusting behaviour. If you post it to (eg) a community group for those people, I'd say it should be illegal.

That said, I'm very liberal on policing, so believe that the state shouldn't be responsible for policing morality, which people may not like when they realise it involves making things that are pretty much objectively immoral legal, regardless of what they are.

[–] davidagain@lemmy.world 5 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

You seem to think that if something is indirect it isn't harmful, so being openly racist with your friends is OK as long as you're not telling the people you're dehumanizing directly? Sounds like you would think cheating on your wife is OK as long as she didn't find out.

Personally, I don't think there is any good or acceptable racial hatred, and pretending that there is is what got the neofascists so much political clout around the world.

[–] 1rre@discuss.tchncs.de 3 points 5 hours ago

I don't think it's ok.

I think it's not the state's job to dictate whether people can do it. I have the exact same opinion for cheating.

[–] Deathray5@lemmynsfw.com 101 points 1 day ago

I hate agreeing with fucking 4chan but fair

[–] fistac0rpse@fedia.io 44 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

It's ridiculous for the UK to issue fines to a company who doesn't operate in the country. Just block access if that's whatever your stupid laws dictate.

[–] veniasilente@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 hours ago

What? And let loose what is basically an opportunity for a bribe?

[–] FelixCress@lemmy.world 6 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

EU fined number of tech giants before, this is not new. If you have users and derive income from a country, you are operating in this country.

[–] semperverus@lemmy.world 12 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Those tech giants operate in the EU and have EU customers. 4Chan does neither and stores no user data. At that point the onus is on the user and the UK/EU should be going after their own citizens that use it if they have a problem with it being used. Ideally, they wouldn't go after anyone but here we are.

[–] RaivoKulli@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 hours ago

4chan is selling passes to UK customers

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›