• kn98
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

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

    • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

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

      • kn98
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        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. Moose@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          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?

        • VirtualOdour@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          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.