3 ms·
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.
by 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 agoI'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 agoCompetent 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.