376
this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2026
376 points (100.0% liked)
Privacy
6051 readers
10 users here now
Welcome! This is a community for all those who are interested in protecting their privacy.
Rules
PS: Don't be a smartass and try to game the system, we'll know if you're breaking the rules when we see it!
- Be civil and no prejudice
- Don't promote big-tech software
- No apathy and defeatism for privacy (i.e. "They already have my data, why bother?")
- No reposting of news that was already posted
- No crypto, blockchain, NFTs
- No Xitter links (if absolutely necessary, use xcancel)
Related communities:
Some of these are only vaguely related, but great communities.
- !opensource@programming.dev
- !selfhosting@slrpnk.net / !selfhosted@lemmy.world
- !piracy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
- !drm@lemmy.dbzer0.com
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So they have a TOS like Facebook or any other large platform, and reserve the right to refuse service?
Unless they're knowingly doing business with a known convicted terrorist, I fail to see how this makes them a terrorist support platform.
Yeah. I'm not suggesting TOS indicates guilt, but just the "I can't control my users" argument is void.
May I ask why FB, Twitter, etc. get protection from liability from 3rd party content under Section 230 of the Communications Act but these folks don't? They both have a TOS and reserve the right to refuse service.
Epstein ring communicated a lot through Gmail for years and they still never went after those involved nor Google
@motionofethre@piefed.social how would you explain Google still not being sanctioned based on your logic?