• @ddnomad
    link
    99 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
      -29 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
        link
        49 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
          19 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. 🤦🏻‍♂️

          • @ddnomad
            link
            29 months ago

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