Explain how merely showing publicly visible content (without requesting to threaten, intimidate, or demean) necessarily “incites harassment”.
Is this type of harassment merely irritating or bothersome behavior or would it meet a legal definition?
Are you an authority on cunts?
Ad hominem fallacy.
Answer the questions from before.
My answers: it does not.
Reddit stretched the concept of harassment to include public transparency, freedom of information, and nuisances[1] nowhere near legal standards for harassment, and no one should welcome misguided efforts to bring that shitty moderation culture[2] to lemmy.
The fact is OP did not request any attacks by merely showing public information, the public is entitled to public information, OP is no more responsible for misconduct anyone else chooses to commit than the public hosts of the original information[3], reporting actual abuse is the proper way to handle such incidental misconduct, and you know that.
Ergo, you’re trying to dismiss valid
There is no valid suppression of public information or its references.
Ironic given the community you’re posting to, and its own rules. But 🤷♂️.
Which rules do you mean?
“no inciting harassment”
this thread is def inciting harassment against the OP.
Explain how merely showing publicly visible content (without requesting to threaten, intimidate, or demean) necessarily “incites harassment”. Is this type of harassment merely irritating or bothersome behavior or would it meet a legal definition?
Removed by mod
Are you an authority on cunts? Ad hominem fallacy.
Answer the questions from before. My answers: it does not. Reddit stretched the concept of harassment to include public transparency, freedom of information, and nuisances[1] nowhere near legal standards for harassment, and no one should welcome misguided efforts to bring that shitty moderation culture[2] to lemmy.
The fact is OP did not request any attacks by merely showing public information, the public is entitled to public information, OP is no more responsible for misconduct anyone else chooses to commit than the public hosts of the original information[3], reporting actual abuse is the proper way to handle such incidental misconduct, and you know that.
There is no valid suppression of public information or its references.
That’s unfounded speculation & irrelevant.
Impossible to do with words over the internet. Overdramatic.
No double standard[4]. Strawman fallacy.
text on a screen we can all disregard ↩︎
that spreads accountability unjustly beyond moral reason to bystanders reporting information anyone can see ↩︎
if showing public information is wrong, then the original hosts are wrong, too, which they aren’t ↩︎
There mere act of showing public information does not constitute abuse, and claiming it does leads to disastrous consequences. ↩︎