Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
I have received complaints that Google’s @YouTubeTV is discriminating against faith-based programming.
These concerning allegations come at a time when American public discourse has experienced an unprecedented—and unacceptable—surge in censorship.
I’m asking Google for answers
Source: Federal Communications Chairman Brendan Carr Twitter.
Sounds like basically a faith-oriented streaming platform that does discriminate against certain content is marketing themselves by saying that they are better than YouTube TV because YouTube discriminates and using this as a way to say that the government is even "investigating" YouTube's discrimination to prove their point even though they were the ones who triggered the "investigation". Good marketing if you have a niche audience obsessed with discriminating and pretending they're the ones being discriminated against because people don't like their discrimination.