this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2026
152 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
85574 readers
3816 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 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So in your mind protecting people from proven harms is censorship? Isnt this what you essentially are advocating for here?
Side note, censorship is not what I advocate for, but a free internet thats safe for everyone. If regulation is censorship then you clearly need to look up the definitions.
You are again assuming that "proven harms" is not a term that can be manipulated. How would you feel about a potential future government banning anything about trans/gay people because it (according to them) has proven harm against children? Its not really that much of a hypothetical either as numerous states in the USA are heading down that route.
The whole premise of proven harms is that it is not manipulated - but proven. Stop trying to change the narrative, when the fact is, that harms which correspond to children also apply to other ages - thats the thing where talking about.
I'm not assuming, I am stating this, as 'proven' doesnt change meaning (otherwise its just misinformation).
I'm not changing the narrative, I am pointing out that there is no objective standard for proven harms, at best in a cohesive society you can get a general agreement on something like that, but there is always going to be the possibility of it being manipulated by a bad actor in power. Do you really think it would be beyond a hard right government to dredge up some "studies" showing that the "gay agenda" is damaging kids?
We all know its bollocks but that wouldn't stop them abusing a precedent set now.
Yes, there is a possibility that a malicious actor may fabricate "studies", im not denying that - in fact I agree with your comment.
It is important to realise that by supporting such efforts people will get hurt. Of course, banning isnt a valid option, and certainly not bans which concentrate within a particular minority.
It is those who let this happen that should dace the consequences - not the people, not the minorities and not anyone (regardless of gender, race or age). It may have appeared that I support banning but I dont.