this post was submitted on 16 May 2025

52 points (76.0% liked)

Technology

72829 readers

2392 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

[email protected]

Why does digital violence against LGBTI people in Thailand and Taiwan continue even after marriage equality? (www.amnesty.org)

submitted 2 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 22 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 32 points 2 months ago

Because there are assholes everywhere

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago

You’re… kidding, right? You can’t possibly be this naive.

If people don’t like something, there are those who will be assholes about it. Legality doesn’t matter at all. People don’t magically stop being assholes just because a law is passed.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

because even though the laws changed, people are still bigoted assholes.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Exactly, society != government.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

"Digital Violence"

Are they playing video games?

Very poor choice of wording if you want people to take it seriously.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

what is the I in LGBTI? I've never seen it before

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Intersex- people whose sex at birth isn't clearly male or female

[–] [email protected] 8 points 2 months ago

ty that makes sense.

[–] technocrit 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Because marriage is the problem not the solution. The state should have no role in enforcing religious ceremonies and privileging those who participate. The idea of "marriage equality" is complete bullshit since marriage overtly favors religion, hetero-normativity, etc. Fuck the state. Fuck religion. Fuck their marriage.

Fuck homophobes too ofc, but "marriage equality" is a problem not a solution. Delusional headline.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

I agree. Ideally, the government would only have a set of contracts between parties to get certain benefits, such as visitation rights, power of attorney, etc. Cities could offer "marriage" bundles, but IMO "marriage" shouldn't be a concept at the government level, but instead a private affair that you can define any way you like. The government should instead have a separate definition that narrowly defines what they want for whatever the status is being used for (e.g. combined finances for taxes).

That doesn't solve the hate associated with LGBT people, but it does fix access to legal protections/benefits, assuming the contracts don't require certain genders or whatever (not sure why they would).

IMO, we could get pretty far by having people in relationships form corporations, since the overlap I pretty similar to marriage, we'd just need a special form of corporation for family units.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 months ago

Because now starting counting lgtb violence while before was not counting by autorities

[+] [email protected] -13 points 2 months ago (5 children)

Easy. Nationalize social media and turn them into democratic cooperatives with the mandate to enforce strict moderation on hate speech.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 2 months ago (1 children)

nationalize

cooperatives

make up your mind

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

there's kids on here , they don't know what the fuck they're on about and will grab the most extreme thing they can think of to hang their hat on without knowing what it means.

"I'm an anticapitalist and what's anticapitalist ? Things being owned by the state! What else? Co-operatives"

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

nationalize social media

Okay buddy, what about the social media that's literally just servers running in some hobbiest's basement?

Transitioning companies into co-ops would be a better solution as it gets rid of the worst of capitalism while leaving as much of the existing infrastructure as humanely possible.

Basically just send middle management and up packing.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Yes. Cooperatives = co-ops. Let the workers (and possibly users) elect management and what to invest profits into.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Oh yes, let's nationalize the communications platforms and give the government direct control over how people express themselves. Surely the government is 100% trustworthy and will not use that power to suppress criticism or political opponents, or track people who are 'unpatriotic', or redefine 'hate speech' in a way that benefits the current regime. No such thing has ever happened in the history of ever. What could possibly go wrong.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yes, privatize! That has worked so well every time...

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Not privatize, atomize. Centralized control is ripe for abuse, no matter whose control it is.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

Divide and conquer. Non state-actors and special interest have a far easier time attacking a hundred small entities than one big one. Because people have much less bandwidth to track all this shit than it is to spread it around. See ALEC and the strategy behind state rights.

In the end this is about economic power. The only way to curb it is through a democratic government. Lemmy servers too can be bought and sold and the communities captured that grew on them.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

What you propose is simple (as in simplistic), but far from easy. Content moderation at scale is extremely difficult, if not impossible. See "Masnick's Impossibility Theorem."

Also, deplatforming bigots is difficult and ineffective:

https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/archive/rja14/Papers/vu2023no.pdf
https://www.theregreview.org/2023/11/09/mcdonald-the-limits-of-deplatforming/ (bonus link/spoiler alert: it's a monopoly issue https://www.theregreview.org/2024/01/16/englebert-a-role-for-antitrust-in-online-content-moderation/)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Yes the same heavy moderation that worked wonders for curtailing the rise of hate speech online over the last decade. It did not at all just incentivized the hate mongers to simply build their own platforms and audiences were they cannot be fact checked by anyone sane.

Let people spout and indulge in all the hate speech they want, instead have social mechanisms to dissuade from it. You know, like the real fucking world. The downvotes on reddit are such a simple mechanism that works at a level similar to how social feedback leads to self censorship people do in the real world.

Also fuck outta here with fact checking bs. You don’t hear more disinformation than the kind that gets repeated in barbershops daily, even before the internet and no one ever thought you had to fact check the shit Tony is saying this week. You just learned to take everything with a grain of salt.