3 ms·
It boils down to intent -- are the censorship czars engaging in social constructivism where they try to "steer" society in a certain direction (some kind of Uto
by ihsw2 8y ago
It boils down to intent -- are the censorship czars engaging in social constructivism where they try to "steer" society in a certain direction (some kind of Utopian ideal) or are they simply enforcing accuracy in content?
- dsfyu404ed 8y agothe latter is a subset of the former.
- ihsw2 8y agoOnly from an absolutist vantage point where one narrative is declared universally self-evident. At the risk of descending into moral relativism (which seems is where the internet governance is heading), this is simply not the case. Gender noncomformity theory is just one of numerous issues that are exclusive to an extremely narrow section of global society, where censorship of rejection of gender noncomformity theory is necessitated within this extremely narrow section of society. The key here is the audience -- for some, censorship of opinions rejecting (or being skeptical of) gender non-binary ideology is important and that claims of heteronormative superiority are self-evidently inaccurate, but the (in)accuracy of such statements are subjective and as such censorship moves from being a plainly neutral act to one attempting to engage in social constructivism. The nuance is important and yes it does leave open the possibility of communities (for example) rallying around geocentrism and attacking heliocentrists, but that is the nature of free speech.