11 pointsby Teever5 hours ago3 comments
  • cloudie783 hours ago
    No they don’t. If they do - then they equally have a responsibility to block LBTQ+ content.

    Social platforms must remain neutral carriers, not arbiters of truth and morality. Unless it’s governed by a democratic process.

    Until then slap an 18+ tag on it and move on.

    • notagainffs2 hours ago
      Are you for leaving ISIS beheadings up on social platforms as well? Those are "legal" in the jurisdiction where they happened (self-proclaimed caliphate and all that). What about CSAM from countries with lax laws about those things?

      Your comment about LBTQ+ is interesting. That is most likely blocked in backwards countries where things like that are illegal, or various platforms would face consequences in those jurisdictions.

  • simianwords3 hours ago
    I’m uncomfortable with this. But on the other hand, executing someone just for the sake of it and not showing it to anyone else is much worse. At least this has a purpose beyond vengeance
    • notagainffs2 hours ago
      It is worse *not* live-streaming it?

      The purpose of the live-stream *is* the ugly thing. It is not a retribution from the state meted out on the perpetrator. It is propaganda. It is similar to ISIS beheadings.

      I hope you did not mean that the propaganda is a good thing in this case.

  • floro3 hours ago
    Nope