4 ms·

I support deplatforming. Private companies and such. Twitter should never be a public forum unless the US government feels they need the existing user ecosyste

I support deplatforming. Private companies and such. Twitter should never be a public forum unless the US government feels they need the existing user ecosystem when they turn it into a utility.

stale2002 6y ago
You originally said this "some great ideas to fix the internet without overt censorship". This statement is false. That was my point. Mozilla explicitily was supporting censorship. So, therefore it is not "without censorship". It seems like you are walking your original statement back though, and instead simply saying that you personally support censorship. So great. Glad that you agree that your original statement was false, and that Mozilla is actually supporting deplatforming.
- undersuit 6y ago
  Deplatforming isn't censorship.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    Yes it is! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies." Anything that "suppresses" or controls speech is censorship, no matter who does it. That's the definition of the word.
    - undersuit 6y ago
      He's still able to speak. If this is censorship then I should be able to force any publisher to produce my ramblings and drawings.
      - stale2002 6y ago
        > He's still able to speak Does not matter. This is still the definition of censorship, according to the relevant authorities on definitions of words. Basically every definition that you find will agree with me that private companies can censor people. > should be able to force Who said anything about force? I am just saying that private companies can censor people, according to basically every definition of the word. You can have whatever opinions that you want on if censorship is good or bad.
        undersuit 6y ago
        I'm not arguing that private companies can't censor people. An employer can definitely censor an employee. A group of publishers can embargo an author. Twitter and Trump had a consensual relationship and Twitter ended it. That's not censorship.
      - posix_me_less 6y ago
        Competent censorship does not cut the tongue. It limits and controls the communication. Twitter service is close to a public utility at this point, capability of any one ideological group to control it should be limited.

I support deplatforming. Private companies and such. Twitter should never be a public forum unless the US government feels they need the existing user ecosystem when they turn it into a utility.

stale2002 6y ago

You originally said this "some great ideas to fix the internet without overt censorship". This statement is false. That was my point. Mozilla explicitily was supporting censorship. So, therefore it is not "without censorship". It seems like you are walking your original statement back though, and instead simply saying that you personally support censorship. So great. Glad that you agree that your original statement was false, and that Mozilla is actually supporting deplatforming.

undersuit 6y ago
Deplatforming isn't censorship.
- stale2002 6y ago
  Yes it is! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship "Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies." Anything that "suppresses" or controls speech is censorship, no matter who does it. That's the definition of the word.
  - undersuit 6y ago
    He's still able to speak. If this is censorship then I should be able to force any publisher to produce my ramblings and drawings.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > He's still able to speak Does not matter. This is still the definition of censorship, according to the relevant authorities on definitions of words. Basically every definition that you find will agree with me that private companies can censor people. > should be able to force Who said anything about force? I am just saying that private companies can censor people, according to basically every definition of the word. You can have whatever opinions that you want on if censorship is good or bad.
      - undersuit 6y ago
        I'm not arguing that private companies can't censor people. An employer can definitely censor an employee. A group of publishers can embargo an author. Twitter and Trump had a consensual relationship and Twitter ended it. That's not censorship.
    - posix_me_less 6y ago
      Competent censorship does not cut the tongue. It limits and controls the communication. Twitter service is close to a public utility at this point, capability of any one ideological group to control it should be limited.