4 ms·
That's sort of the point, though, isn't it? In the case of a government, there's a broad prohibition against censorship regardless of content. So whether or n
by Imnimo 6y ago
That's sort of the point, though, isn't it? In the case of a government, there's a broad prohibition against censorship regardless of content. So whether or not I approve of an idea doesn't enter into the equation when faced with government censorship.
But if I don't feel there's a similar prohibition against corporations or individuals censoring things on their platform/property/whatever, then I have to think about whether or not I agree with the proposed censorship for other reasons. That's not a retreat to the motte - that's just an acknowledgement of the fact that anti-government-censorship arguments don't necessarily apply to private entities.
Once we're dealing with an entity for which I don't have a blanket objection to censorship, it makes perfect sense that I would accept some content bans but not others, based on my opinion of that content.
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoBut there's still an argument against censorship, even given your starting point. They may at some point decide to ban content, and that may be a ban that you don't accept - that you think is wrong. If you're not going to like it when it's done to positions you agree with, then you have a reasonable basis for opposing it when it's done to positions that you disagree with.
- Imnimo 6y agoSure, that's not an unreasonable position to take. But I also don't think it's unreasonable for someone to object to some instances of censorship and not others. It's certainly not fallacious to take such a position.
- triceratops 6y agoYou can disagree with a specific instance of moderation while defending someone's right to perform moderation in general. How is that different from disagreeing with a specific thing someone said, but defending their right to say it?