• ddnomad@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    Scary illigal content here

    I guess we test and see whether I get banned.

    Also, it’s not the same. A link to a website is not “pirated content”. A link to a website in a “collection” not shared with anybody is not publicly available pirated content.

    Why would Google preemptively ban a set of characters that does not constitute a slur and is perfectly legal to exist?

    • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Why would Google preemptively ban a set of characters that does not constitute a slur and is perfectly legal to exist?

      Because they can? Unless your argument is that a third party site should be forced to allow anything that isn’t illegal, or a slur, I’m not really following your train of thought here.

      • ddnomad@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        My point is that you should not excuse big corporations for clearly overstepping their bounds when it comes to moderation (as in “minority report” style moderation).

        For Google, it would probably be even cheaper to only check URLs in collections that were shared with anybody, at a point the owner attempts to share them. Instead, they preemptively hide them from you, because “this set of characters offends us”.

        This is something people should be angry about, not find an excuse for.

        • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          This is a publicly shared collection, which has been shared with someone.

          Are you not familiar with how the collection system works?

          This isn’t your browsers bookmarks being synced between browsers, this is a collection shared among others.

          You’re literally describing what is more than likely happening in the photo. 🤦🏻‍♂️