WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

175

(post is archived)

[–] 6 pts

So basically they are saying that their success of "Safer", is through more censorship.

[–] 3 pts

I don’t think you are allowed to say that.

[–] 2 pts

That’s the summary I was expecting.

[–] 2 pts

The internet is about to get a lot safer for bloodsucking parasite elites

[–] 1 pt

When I think about internet safety, I think about protection from pop ups, spyware, and viruses. Not about someone censoring content for me.

[–] 0 pt

They have cognitive dissonance, on the one hand, It's easier to ascertain what people are up to and who is a threat. on the other hand, they fear missing something and the threat gains momentum. It's good for them and good for the people who oppose them. When they start fabricating new laws, paranoia has set in. The monster has gotten too uncontrollable.

[–] 0 pt

If you use Google, Instagram, Wikipedia, or YouTube, you're going to start noticing changes to content moderation, transparency, and safety features on those sites over the next six months.

The usual big targets.

If this draconian, government micromanaging limits itself to those major sites I’m fine with it. Let those become useless ghettos for average, clueless users while the rest of us migrate to smaller, independent sites and decentralized services. Ultimately we need to stop depending on centrally controlled services.

[–] 2 pts

Spoiler: government never limits itself.