8 ms·
Thousands of such online communities, and you only throw out the ones that threaten your hedge fund?
by ulucs 6y ago
Thousands of such online communities, and you only throw out the ones that threaten your hedge fund?
- onethought 6y agoThat isn’t what censorship is. Nor is it a violation of free speech. The government didn’t get involved. Private companies and individuals can do what ever they like with their property, no?
- betwixthewires 6y agoSupposedly, until you criticize the idea of taking their money and giving it to everyone who claims to need it more than them. Arguments like these are all to often made out of convenience, but should be made in good faith and on principle. Do you truly believe in their right to private property?
- onethought 6y agoI don’t get your point at all. Are you trying to argue some kind of Marxist position in order to show censorship can exist without government involvement. I’m happy to have a discussion on why capital owners probably stole their wealth at some point. But you need to take me on the journey to how that’s related to censorship
- betwixthewires 6y agoMy point is, this argument that "they're a private company" is great, and I 100% agree with it. But I usually find that people that make this argument don't actually believe that these companies have the right to their private property, they just use it because they're ideologically opposed to the people getting banned for whatever reason. They'll say that a private company has the right to it's property and then in the next breath call them evil for having a lot of property and demand that they get taxed out of existence.
- onethought 6y agoYou can consistently hold both views. If the rules of property mean I have certain rights. But I don’t like the rules of property, and I want them to change.
- betwixthewires 6y agoYou can if you want, but if you don't believe corporations should have a right to their property, tossing "they have a right to ban you from speaking" in someone's face is a bit disingenuous. And also, counterproductive. If you'd like to change the rules, perhaps defending them every time they're used to hurt your ideological opponents is not the way to do that. Maybe it would be more effective to agree with them and help them.
- onethought 6y agoI don’t have any ideological opponents... I’m pretty happy to be convinced either way on most issues. But colour me unconvinced on this one. They aren’t banning you from speaking, just stopping you from doing it in their house, you can continue your message everywhere else. This meta discussion about the actual point feels awkward. Is the alternative you are suggesting that you have to accept whatever anyone says always? Is it more nuanced than that?
- gsich 6y ago>That isn’t what censorship is. Nor is it a violation of free speech. The government didn’t get involved. That's not the definition of censorship. To quote Wikipedia: "Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions, and other controlling bodies."
- onethought 6y agoThat’s right, let’s ignore the context of this discussion, and instead argue the semantics of the word. Do you cry censorship when someone shushes you in the cinema?
- gsich 6y agoYou started with the discussion about the semantics of the word, so I responded. Wrong comparison.
- onethought 6y agoWhy is it a wrong comparison are you not being censored (according to the definition you provided). I’m pointing out a ridiculous application of what you’ve pointed out, private business, or an individual stoping you from speaking while technically censorship, happens all the time and no one raises an eyebrow. Would shushing a whole crowd of people talking in the cinema be untoward? What about a whole subreddit worth of people?
- gsich 6y agoNot everything has a real world counterpartbto compare to.
- onethought 6y agoTrue, great point. Reddit is not part of the “real world”. Got it! But in this case, it’s a perfect analogue, that illustrates why decrying censorship here is odd. Reddit can kick people out if they don’t like the behaviour. This happens every day in businesses all over the world (virtual and non virtual) and it is not decried and for the most part is approved of.
- Traster 6y agoBy your standard every newspaper, every TV channel, every website that refuses to publish my views is censoring me. It's an absurd standard to call censorship. Discord has made no attempt to stop anyone saying anything, they're just chosen not to lend these people their megaphone.
- ZGDUwpqEWpUZ 6y agoThis is one of the more stupid soundbites the pro-censorship crowd has come up with. A good red flag, though. Discord reacted to how the platform they had already given was being used. That's different, practically and morally, from NBC not giving them a TV show.
- Kbelicius 6y ago> Discord reacted to how the platform they had already given was being used. They did not give it without terms of usage so your point is mute.
- ZGDUwpqEWpUZ 6y agoMoot. Are Terms of Service above criticism now? Let's start with the basics. Forget the selective enforcement aspect and the lawyering over the definition of "censorship" - can anything a private company does with its private property ever be criticized?
- Kbelicius 6y agoThanks for the correction. Terms of service are not above criticism, did not say it and did not imply it. I don't understand how you came to think that considering that in your previous post there is no criticism of discords TOS. I was simply replaying to your statement that: "Discord reacted to how the platform they had already given was being used.". I don't understand why anyone would think that the owner of the platform should not be able to dictate the terms of use of their platform or react if those terms are not followed.