5 ms·

Censorship is the Government stating that person A must not communicate with person B. Deplatforming/cancelling is person C _asking_ person A not to communicat

Censorship is the Government stating that person A must not communicate with person B. Deplatforming/cancelling is person C _asking_ person A not to communicate with person B, under threat of person C no longer communicating with person A.

stale2002 6y ago
> Censorship is the Government stating that person A must not communicate with person B. Your statement is not true. 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."
- dleslie 6y ago
  The key, in the wiki definition, is: > controlling bodies My point still holds. Asking a company to deplatform someone under threat of boycott is not censorship; because no individual user is in control of the platform.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    It listed controlling bodies in a list that also contained "private institutions". So, according to the wiki definition, it states multiple times, all over that article, that private companies can censor people, and it fits with in that definition. > a company to deplatform A private institution can absolutely censor people though. So what you are describing is an individual advocating in favor of censorship. Here is another quote from the article " It may be carried out by governments or by private organizations either at the behest of government or on their own initiative."
    - dleslie 6y ago
      That's being overly reductive; akin to stating that Christian Mingle censors Atheist or Muslim views because they focus on a Christian market. Or that Steam censors by not approving all content. At that point "censorship" is diluted to have no meaniong beyond curation. The company is choosing to narrow its market focus; it tried to facilitate person's B and C, but C is forcing them to choose. That's curation, not censorship.
      - stale2002 6y ago
        > That's being overly reductive No it isn't. It is literally the definition that is on wikipedia. That is a very good authority on definitions for things. > At that point "censorship" is diluted to have no meaning beyond curation. Sure it does. The meaning is quite clear in the article, which is a relevant authority on the issue. Private companies can censor people. That is the definition, and the relevant authorities on the matter agree that it is. Most definitions that you find with agree with me that private companies can censor people. This is not controversial, and most definitions agree with me.
        dleslie 6y ago
        Private companies engage in censorship only when they have a controlling interest on a form of communication, and that is the sole purview of monopolies.
        stale2002 6y ago
        > and that is the sole purview of monopolies. No actually. According to the wikipedia definition on censorship, there is no requirement to be a monopoly, in order for a private business to engage in censorship. Instead, according to the actual definition of censorship, censorship is any sort of "suppression of speech, public communication, or other information", and private, non-monopolies can absolutely engage in censorship. You are simply incorrect about what the definition of censorship is. The actual definitions, that are all over the place, do not require a monopoly.
chr1 6y ago
Person C threatening to no longer communicate with person A, is different than person C threatening to do additional work to not conduct business with person A. This kind of weaponization of everyday business does not lead to anything good. And just like we would condemn shop owner refusing to sell to a customer based on race/hair color/ clothing style we need to condemn twitter refusing service to sci-hub, to Trump, or even to actual murderers like Xi/Putin/Aliyev. Even your example of deplatforming is a very questionable practice, for instance it is often used by cults like Jehovah Witnesses to disallow followers talking with family members who leave the cult.
- dleslie 6y ago
  Freedom of Association is a fundamental freedom in many countries, for good reason. I'll happily avoid services that happily and stubbornly provide platforms to white nationalists and similar wretches, like Parler and Gab, and it certainly does not bother me that such platforms may not welcome me. Cults and similar certainly do use their ability to sever association to control their membership, but making that step and severing those bonds frees those same members from the harm of the cult.
  - chr1 6y ago
    There is difference between association and between singling out someone and refusing service that would be at no additional cost to you. Twitter not only banned Trumps account, but also sci-hub account which is far from being a "wretch" and has contributed immensely to science. If we include social media service providers into "cancellation" wars the result will be too costly for the society, so we need better ways to fight against nationalists. Sacrificing freedom of speech to a group applying unknown rules, without a mechanism to appeal, will be harmful in the long run, even though this time it have produced a result we like.
    - dleslie 6y ago
      I fail to see the critical distinction between refusing to associate and refusing to engage with, or how the freedom of association can be upheld without the ability to refuse such engagement. We must provide social media services with protected freedoms, or we risk impinging upon the freedoms of its users. Users must be free to choose social media which allows them to _not_ associate or communicate with those they do not wish to. Nor should we compel them to support speech that they do not wish to, for similar reasons. If your concern is whether certain legal speech may be effectively completely deplatformed, then may I suggest the solution is federated social networking and not to impugn the freedom of association.

stale2002 6y ago

> Censorship is the Government stating that person A must not communicate with person B. Your statement is not true. 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."

dleslie 6y ago
The key, in the wiki definition, is: > controlling bodies My point still holds. Asking a company to deplatform someone under threat of boycott is not censorship; because no individual user is in control of the platform.
- stale2002 6y ago
  It listed controlling bodies in a list that also contained "private institutions". So, according to the wiki definition, it states multiple times, all over that article, that private companies can censor people, and it fits with in that definition. > a company to deplatform A private institution can absolutely censor people though. So what you are describing is an individual advocating in favor of censorship. Here is another quote from the article " It may be carried out by governments or by private organizations either at the behest of government or on their own initiative."
  - dleslie 6y ago
    That's being overly reductive; akin to stating that Christian Mingle censors Atheist or Muslim views because they focus on a Christian market. Or that Steam censors by not approving all content. At that point "censorship" is diluted to have no meaniong beyond curation. The company is choosing to narrow its market focus; it tried to facilitate person's B and C, but C is forcing them to choose. That's curation, not censorship.
    - stale2002 6y ago
      > That's being overly reductive No it isn't. It is literally the definition that is on wikipedia. That is a very good authority on definitions for things. > At that point "censorship" is diluted to have no meaning beyond curation. Sure it does. The meaning is quite clear in the article, which is a relevant authority on the issue. Private companies can censor people. That is the definition, and the relevant authorities on the matter agree that it is. Most definitions that you find with agree with me that private companies can censor people. This is not controversial, and most definitions agree with me.
      - dleslie 6y ago
        Private companies engage in censorship only when they have a controlling interest on a form of communication, and that is the sole purview of monopolies.
        stale2002 6y ago
        > and that is the sole purview of monopolies. No actually. According to the wikipedia definition on censorship, there is no requirement to be a monopoly, in order for a private business to engage in censorship. Instead, according to the actual definition of censorship, censorship is any sort of "suppression of speech, public communication, or other information", and private, non-monopolies can absolutely engage in censorship. You are simply incorrect about what the definition of censorship is. The actual definitions, that are all over the place, do not require a monopoly.

chr1 6y ago

Person C threatening to no longer communicate with person A, is different than person C threatening to do additional work to not conduct business with person A. This kind of weaponization of everyday business does not lead to anything good. And just like we would condemn shop owner refusing to sell to a customer based on race/hair color/ clothing style we need to condemn twitter refusing service to sci-hub, to Trump, or even to actual murderers like Xi/Putin/Aliyev. Even your example of deplatforming is a very questionable practice, for instance it is often used by cults like Jehovah Witnesses to disallow followers talking with family members who leave the cult.

dleslie 6y ago
Freedom of Association is a fundamental freedom in many countries, for good reason. I'll happily avoid services that happily and stubbornly provide platforms to white nationalists and similar wretches, like Parler and Gab, and it certainly does not bother me that such platforms may not welcome me. Cults and similar certainly do use their ability to sever association to control their membership, but making that step and severing those bonds frees those same members from the harm of the cult.
- chr1 6y ago
  There is difference between association and between singling out someone and refusing service that would be at no additional cost to you. Twitter not only banned Trumps account, but also sci-hub account which is far from being a "wretch" and has contributed immensely to science. If we include social media service providers into "cancellation" wars the result will be too costly for the society, so we need better ways to fight against nationalists. Sacrificing freedom of speech to a group applying unknown rules, without a mechanism to appeal, will be harmful in the long run, even though this time it have produced a result we like.
  - dleslie 6y ago
    I fail to see the critical distinction between refusing to associate and refusing to engage with, or how the freedom of association can be upheld without the ability to refuse such engagement. We must provide social media services with protected freedoms, or we risk impinging upon the freedoms of its users. Users must be free to choose social media which allows them to _not_ associate or communicate with those they do not wish to. Nor should we compel them to support speech that they do not wish to, for similar reasons. If your concern is whether certain legal speech may be effectively completely deplatformed, then may I suggest the solution is federated social networking and not to impugn the freedom of association.