this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2025
765 points (98.0% liked)

Technology

4942 readers
1240 users here now

Which posts fit here?

Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.


Post guidelines

[Opinion] prefixOpinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.


Rules

1. English onlyTitle and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original linkPost URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communicationAll communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. InclusivityEveryone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacksAny kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangentsStay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may applyIf something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.


Companion communities

!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip


Icon attribution | Banner attribution


If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] misk@piefed.social 36 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

That’s also what many other social media would do because it’s easier to ban posting of personal information regardless of where it came from because you can’t trust moderation you outsourced to some third world country to do proper checks.

Example:

Reddit is quite open and pro-free speech, but it is not okay to post someone's personal information or post links to personal information. This includes links to public Facebook pages and screenshots of Facebook pages with the names still legible.

Posting someone's personal information will get you banned. When posting screenshots, be sure to edit out any personally identifiable information to avoid running afoul of this rule.

https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043066452-Is-posting-someone-s-private-or-personal-information-okay

Dunno if Bsky has something similar but it’s more of a cost optimisation than anything so people are getting pointlessly angry at individual companies rather than the system which has this sort of behaviour as a guaranteed outcome.

[–] IHeartBadCode@fedia.io 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

That doesn't change the aspect of it being censorship. It just means that a risk adverse company is risk adverse to the degree that they will employ censorship to maintain that aversion to risk. At the end of the day, it's censorship. The rationale for why they've employed it is notwithstanding.

[–] misk@piefed.social 1 points 40 minutes ago* (last edited 34 minutes ago)

Censorship can be good and ban on personal information sharing prevents witch hunts. Reddit banned it only after it resulted in dead people which is too late in my book.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Sunil_Tripathi

[–] cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

A competent programmer could write an algorithm to knock out the low hanging fruit, like public Facebook pages, in about five minutes.

Might take me a couple hours. Someone genuinely good and familiar with the space would have been done in less time than it took to write this comment.

Can't imagine why they would do that, or why they would want to extend protections they politically must extend to marginalized people who take real precautions to assholes who know they'll always be protected by power.

[–] misk@piefed.social 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They don’t want to deal with the slightest risk of dealing with legal consequences. The ole corpo risk matrix + risk appetite as assessed by lawyers resulted in this, no IT involved ever probably.

[–] cassandrafatigue@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Totally, corporations will always go fasch, not just because they want to¹ but because it's what they are

But

can't trust moderation

There is low hanging fruit that can be procedurally verified.

They chose this, obviously, clearly

¹they always want to

[–] misk@piefed.social 0 points 1 day ago

Your solution doesn’t fully eliminate risk on it’s own and addressing that costs money - that’s about as far as a rational company has to go. They know going nuclear and banning all personal info means not having to deal with it at all and it’s a niche thing that will affect negligible amount of users. Bean counting is the core of meeting regulatory and legal requirements in case of for-profit organisations.

[–] 73ms@sopuli.xyz 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

can always come up with rationalizations but the fact remains there are other platforms that will not "cost optimize" it away.

[–] misk@piefed.social -1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Those platforms are irrelevant. Yes, I realise I’m using an irrelevant platform but being relevant is something I actively avoid in social networks.