|
|
|
|
|
|
by repolfx
2638 days ago
|
|
|
The same Voat that just got banned in New Zealand for hosting stuff the government didn't approve of whilst Facebook, which also hosted it, was left alone? That Voat? Somehow I'm skeptical this is a viable approach short of Torrifying the entire internet. |
|
|
Take it up with New Zealand, which has very strong laws about hate speech and promoting extremist communities.
> whilst Facebook, which also hosted it, was left alone?
That content makes up a microscopic amount of the content on Facebook, and it was removed when reported. That content makes up the vast majority of the traffic on Voat, however.
It seems like you're moving the goalposts here, though. We're not talking about governments banning websites, we're talking about the government forcing websites to host content that they don't want to host. That's what's at play here.
And the fact is that you are free to start a public or Tor-based community of your own, unless you're in countries where Tor is blocked, in which case I think you're in far deeper shit than this discussion is focused on.