4 ms·

Ok, so the latest pro-censorship talking point is to compare censorship with spam filtering. Thank you for keeping us updated on the party line. War is peace,

• eesmith 5y ago
  ... that's been the argument since forever. A publishing company isn't required to publish every manuscript that comes its way. A newspaper isn't required to publish every letter to the editor. A radio call-in show isn't required to broadcast every caller. And the article doesn't argue "censorship is just spam filtering". It uses that as a starting point to show how people ALREADY accept that a forum doesn't need to accept all postings. It then says: ] Now let’s expand that circle out as well. There’s increasing evidence that when you have a totally freeform venue for free speech, it makes many people hold back and not join in. For all the talk of “cancel culture” that relies on claims that people are somehow “afraid” to speak their minds, they should maybe consider that the problem might not be cancel culture, but that some people don’t want to have to constantly debate their beliefs with every rando who challenges them. with a long discussion of the negative impacts on free speech when "randos" are allowed to post whatever they want. ] The end result then, is that you get fewer places for speech, rather than more. And that is an attack on the “principles of free speech.” Forum moderation is an exercise of the right of free association. In the US that's a First Amendment right co-equal to the right of free speech.