• ulterno@lemmy.kde.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Well, they called it a slur. That’s good enough a reason.

        That’s why I don’t like the idea of censoring slurs. Anything can be one.
        If some chap at X, determining which word is considered a slur, says, “I watched a YouTube video with <public personality> telling someone else not to call them ‘cisgender’.”, that’s probably good enough to add it to the list, while most of them not actually matching the dictionary definition for “slur”.

        The point comes as to where to draw the line and the company gets to choose.

        • Omniraptor@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          The thing is, I dislike censorship in general. Corporate or government. Yes it’s the corp’s prerogative, but we’re allowed to criticize corporate censorship and hypocrisy regarding censorship.

          I don’t get why people defend censorship by powerful/monopolistic companies run by billionaires while criticizing censorship by the government. They’re not that different.

          • Omniraptor@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            My personal opinion is that for “edge cases” like cisgender, I should be the one who decides what “slurs” I see or don’t see on the feed, rather than some shmuck twitter mod who watched a YouTube video or whatever.