Olives @olives@qoto.org

Sometimes, I run into 500s, so I might accidentally make a duplicate post when that happens.

Hearing of how AfD wants to censor speech which offends them. #FreeSpeech

AfD probably defends their own speech but that is not the same thing as defending free speech.

Apparently, AfD hates freedom of speech.

I'm seeing someone condemning "German politicians" for using very authoritarian and unreasonable rhetoric as if this is just something German politicians generally do.

I check and they are talking about AfD.

I see someone (I'm not linking to it here) criticizing Facebook for not going far enough.

They use words like free speech but they only mention wanting them to allow more hate speech (rather than other forms of expression which Facebook has been criticized for censoring).

I'm hearing that New York has passed another hate speech policy law, despite trying to pass one not that long ago and having it be struck down as unconstitutional.

In this case, the #EFF echoed someone talking about "safety", but in a social context where that often means puritanism. #FreeSpeech

#EFF accidentally promotes puritanism. This "we care about hate" is getting out of hand. #FreeSpeech

A good question to ask might be "Which statute?"

Germany isn't a country I typically deal with.

Classification initiatives should just be an advisory label which is put on a product (and I suppose someone could decline selling some products to minors). It shouldn't be something which removes products from storefronts.

Of course, the language in the criminal code could be better in order to better protect human rights.

This is the risk in giving these bureaucratic type bodies too much power.

There's an interesting piece suggesting that a classification type body might be engaging in puritanical type censorship in Germany.

I always found it suspicious when someone presumed it was something in the criminal code because the language in the criminal code didn't seem to suggest that.

I see someone has somewhat documented Bluesky's puritanism in a piece, although it could be expanded on.

"It's not right that things can be said on TV or the floor of Congress, but not on our platforms."
It's not right that a photo can be the header of an article in a big news outlet (i.e. the naked mannequin), but it can't be posted on Facebook.

While yes, the language that someone might use can be rather vague, I avoided focusing that in the long post as I didn't want it to come off as saying that this taboo content or that taboo content is uniquely bad.

I felt it was a distraction from the main point I was trying to convey.