4 ms·

That 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 the

That 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 ago
Supposedly, 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    My 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 ago
      You 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 ago
        You 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 ago
        I 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 ago
  That’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 ago
    You started with the discussion about the semantics of the word, so I responded. Wrong comparison.
    - onethought 6y ago
      Why 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 ago
        Not everything has a real world counterpartbto compare to.
        onethought 6y ago
        True, 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.

That 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 ago

Supposedly, 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 ago
I 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 ago
  My 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 ago
    You 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 ago
      You 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 ago
        I 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 ago
That’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 ago
  You started with the discussion about the semantics of the word, so I responded. Wrong comparison.
  - onethought 6y ago
    Why 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 ago
      Not everything has a real world counterpartbto compare to.
      - onethought 6y ago
        True, 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.