You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
-2 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

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. 🤦🏻‍♂️

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Open the link and read the thread, the author is not aware of this “collection” being shared publicly.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Asshole Design

!assholedesign@lemmy.ml

Create post

Nothing comes before profit – especially not the consumer.

Community stats

  • 4

    Monthly active users

  • 17

    Posts

  • 276

    Comments

Community moderators