In a video on Oct. 13, Instagram influencer and photojournalist Motaz Azaiza shared footage of the rubble of an apartment, the site of an Israeli bombardment that killed 15 of his family members.

He turns the camera on himself first, visibly upset, and then shows the scene—the ruin of the building, a bloodstain, a neighbor carrying a child’s body draped with a shroud.

In response, Meta restricted access to his account.

    • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      If freedom of speech can’t protect you against corporate censorship then it’s meaningless.

      That’s the biggest load of horse shit I’ve read today.

      • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Have fun on your authoritarian, heavily censored Reddit clone of an instance, then. The rest of the fediverse will re-embrace rights and move on without you.

    • fatzgebum@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Any website owner has the right to decide if he wants to remove certain content on his website. That is not an infringement of free speech.

      • pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah, not in today’s world where they are sock puppets for the government.

        It doesn’t matter because no one else can just infringe on your rights either. Rights are not about just protecting you from government, they’re there to protect you from other people.

      • azuth@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        It is an infringement of free speech as a concept.

        It is not an infringement of US law as the relevant protections are limited in scope to governmental actions.

        Obviously US law and even more so the supreme court’s interpretations of them are flawed, both on a moral level (big corps should also not be allowed to censor speech) and a logical level (censoring speech is free speech, corps are entitled to human rights).

      • Mrkawfee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Except if you have a de facto monopoly on social media which is the digital equivalent of a public forum then you have the ability to effectively curtail free speech.

      • FrostyCaveman@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Uhh… Why is that?

        Are you saying in a vacuum those ideas are the most palatable or something? Because that’s what it sounds like

        I really worry about the future when people just throw their hands up in the air and say “well, fuck it, either we become totalitarians or we let nazis take over”. That’s not much of a choice