3 ms·
Sorry, I'm not sure I really understand this angle. Usually not wanting to be associated with specific content, and not funding that content wouldn't be censors
by kevin_nisbet 5y ago
Sorry, I'm not sure I really understand this angle. Usually not wanting to be associated with specific content, and not funding that content wouldn't be censorship. I would expect it exists in the same way in non digital mediums, advertisers can choose how they spend their money.
- tomlockwood 5y agoIts not just funding - content is often removed because its perceived as unpalatable to advertisers and payment processors. This is the way the modern web which we all made, works.
- marak830 5y agoIt's also removed because the content is abhorrible, or beginning to push the boundires to make the previous abhorrible content seem palatable. The assumption that users cannot see or understand the slide towards abhorrent content is incorrect.
- vorpalhex 5y agoOr the content was fine when published and cultural norms have changed...
- WesolyKubeczek 5y agoI don’t find a problem with a joe filtering out what he doesn’t want to hear, I however have a problem with some platform growing so big and establishing itself so that if you or your business isn’t on it, you may just as well not exist at all, and then booting people out on a whim. Come to think of it, for an effective censorship to exist, you don’t really need a hostile government, if private entities that affect your life in a big way are just as big, if not bigger.