I’m not talking about the US constitution here. I’m saying it is a fundamental human right regardless of the law. What clothing to wear (or not) is part of that freedom.
Private companies should also not restrict fundamental freedoms. I’m aware they’re allowed to currently.
Freedom of expression is a fundamental human right. Fuck the censors.
Edit: this pithy response doesn’t reflect my full understanding of the related nuances here, though it does sum up my feelings on this particular example. See below for further discussion.
Because some instances that aren’t managed well can just have tons and tons of spambots signing up constantly such that it’s not practical to ban individual accounts. Especially since most admin and mod teams are small on Lemmy. There are also literal nazi instances that exist just to go out and harass and threaten minorities or people they hate. While you could ban all the users it’s a lot easier to just block the whole instance.
So while I agree with you that it’s overused, I don’t see how completely disallowing it can work. Not sure what a better solution would look like though.
The lemming ship is long since sailed. I don’t love it but fediversians may be worse lol
Instructions for non-hierarchical group decision-making.
I’d say largely neutral. Progressives don’t love her because she was a prosecutor. She has a bit of a reputation for opportunism and lacks charisma but pretty standard democrat overall.
Love this question. Yes, and not only is it possible, I believe some implementations would be highly preferable. I have come to believe that the presidency concentrates far too much power in a single person and should be eliminated.
From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh, it disgusted me. I craved the strength and certainty of steel.
-MisterNeon
Almost everyone.
So all of these answers have some truth to them, but they are also missing a key factor. The heritage foundation exists because they are paid tons of money by billionaires to sit around and come up with ways to strengthen their dominance over society. The left simply doesn’t have many supporters with that level of wealth. While it’s possible to do this on a voluntary basis it’s a lot harder than getting paid to do it.
That’s a tough one. There’s no obvious moral calculus to translate between lives lost and quality of life.
I tend to think drafting is similar to slavery—it’s a grave violation of basic human rights and should only be considered under the most extreme circumstances where the alternative is clearly worse.
It might depend on the exact nature of the authoritarian regime. Or maybe I’m just not comfortable with either outcome and so I don’t want to answer the question.
Frankly, I was mostly mouthing off here, not trying to voice deep moral reasoning but I appreciate your thoughtful reply. I’m actually not sure that fundamental human rights do exist—at least not in all circumstances. As you point out, they sometimes conflict and we need to adjudicate whose rights are more fundamental in a given situation.
You have a good point and I generally agree that there does exist a tension here. I think where it breaks down is when a platform becomes so large and dominant that there isn’t really any significant alternative. I think morally, this shifts my reasoning away from just a collection of individuals deciding what they want on their platform towards an almost state-like entity. And with that power dynamic I am much more skeptical of their unilateral authority to control what is or isn’t posted on their platform. Given the size and structure of YouTube, it makes more sense to think of it as space that belongs to and should be managed by the community and with respect for individual rights of expression. And I feel strongly that non-sexual nudity is not only not harmful, but that it is very harmful to repress, as we see in this specific example.