3 ms·

Content moderation is de facto censorship. If someone is sharing a honestly held opinion, not threatening anyone - that should be allowed. You seem to be unaw

Content moderation is de facto censorship. If someone is sharing a honestly held opinion, not threatening anyone - that should be allowed. You seem to be unaware of the level of censorship that goes on here, youtube, twitter, etc, etc. It is called breaking community guidelines, de-platforming, shadow banning, hate-speech, etc. Do you remember when Alex Jones was removed from everywhere in a couple of days? Regardless of what you think, should he be allowed a voice? All of this is taking place outside of the legal system btw. Which is meant to establish people's right to free speech.

Tozen 5y ago
Very good points. Including the shadow banning that takes place here and everywhere. Different opinions and views are increasingly censored by those that are empowered. "Power corrupts". Unless a fair system is in place of checks and balances, there will be those that will abuse it whenever they can get away with it.
krapp 5y ago
>Do you remember when Alex Jones was removed from everywhere in a couple of days? Regardless of what you think, should he be allowed a voice? Alex Jones has a voice, it just isn't on mainstream platforms.
- verisimi 5y ago
  Is that not effectively censorship? Do you remember when Trump was banned from Twitter?!?
  - krapp 5y ago
    It is not effectively censorship. Censorship is not effective if it merely makes communication slightly less convenient. >Do you remember when Trump was banned from Twitter?!? Yes, and he deserved it. And yet everything Donald Trump says and does still gets national press coverage, and he's starting his own social media platform with a backlog of millions of followers. It's garbage, but that isn't censorship's fault. We should all wish to be so censored.
    - verisimi 5y ago
      > We should all wish to be so censored. Good god. Do you ever think you're part of the problem? Should we censor people who have a different opinion?
      - krapp 5y ago
        Being banned from Twitter isn't censorship. Donald Trump wasn't "censored" for having a different opinion. Nor was Donald Trump "censored" in any way that actually interfered with or hindered his ability to communicate. People really should stop picking Trump as an example of a martyr to the cause of free speech, he's a really bad one. I know they want the narrative to be that "cancel culture" was just so powerful that it silenced a sitting President but it's just not working out that way.
ajross 5y ago
> Content moderation is de facto censorship. It simply is not. And the proof is that you can see in this very thread a bunch of flagged, dead comments that are still visible, still citable, and (importantly) whose posters are not guilty of crimes for their creation. I'm sorry, but no. Difficulty of finding information is not the same thing as censorship. And we have to stop pretending that it is. > Do you remember when Alex Jones was removed from everywhere in a couple of days? Nope, actually I don't. But interestingly: I absolutely know that Alex Jones' rhetoric is still pervasively accessible to anyone who wants to hear it. Here's his site, if you're having trouble finding it due to all the, ahem, "censorship": https://www.infowars.com/ https://www.infowars.com/
- verisimi 5y ago
  I'm sorry, yes. If major platforms de-platform you, in a co-ordinated fashion that's not censorship? This is all works on account of corporate policies - not law. Law would dictate that unless what was said was illegal, that a person had a right to say it. Which is supportive of the fact that we are living in a fascist (corporate + governance) system. That the legal system is now a joke.
  - ajross 5y ago
    > If major platforms de-platform you, in a co-ordinated fashion that's not censorship? Not in a world where you can continue to post on Infowars or 4chan or reddit or HN or wherever instead, no. Why would it be? You really don't see the difference? In Russia, it is illegal to report on international perspectives about events in Ukraine. That content doesn't exist, and you can't link to it without committing a crime (and, likely, also using a ban evasion tool like a VPN). Do you have an example of an idea or perspective (even one!) that is being suppressed by "major platforms" in a "co-ordinated fashion" that I won't be able to refute with a simple link as I did above?
    - verisimi 5y ago
      I don't think you are taking my point. Yes, you can have a website and your own voice. But if you are being excluded from public platforms - not because you are doing anything illegal, but because a majority or even just the owner doesn't like your opinion - this is a genuine problem. You will live in an echo chamber. These are legal issues and there is legal framework already in existence to prevent illegal acts. Shops cannot refuse service to the public. But an online public platform - eg Twitter - is able to refuse. The ability to refer to a terms of service document that can justify stopping your usage of a public platform when a person has done nothing wrong, should not be legal. That you can be silenced can interpreted as a political act, eg Trump. You might agree with the political slant (but then how would you even hear about alternative views?). I really don't get how you can think or argue that voices are not being censored in the public domain.

Tozen 5y ago

Very good points. Including the shadow banning that takes place here and everywhere. Different opinions and views are increasingly censored by those that are empowered. "Power corrupts". Unless a fair system is in place of checks and balances, there will be those that will abuse it whenever they can get away with it.

krapp 5y ago

>Do you remember when Alex Jones was removed from everywhere in a couple of days? Regardless of what you think, should he be allowed a voice? Alex Jones has a voice, it just isn't on mainstream platforms.

verisimi 5y ago
Is that not effectively censorship? Do you remember when Trump was banned from Twitter?!?
- krapp 5y ago
  It is not effectively censorship. Censorship is not effective if it merely makes communication slightly less convenient. >Do you remember when Trump was banned from Twitter?!? Yes, and he deserved it. And yet everything Donald Trump says and does still gets national press coverage, and he's starting his own social media platform with a backlog of millions of followers. It's garbage, but that isn't censorship's fault. We should all wish to be so censored.
  - verisimi 5y ago
    > We should all wish to be so censored. Good god. Do you ever think you're part of the problem? Should we censor people who have a different opinion?
    - krapp 5y ago
      Being banned from Twitter isn't censorship. Donald Trump wasn't "censored" for having a different opinion. Nor was Donald Trump "censored" in any way that actually interfered with or hindered his ability to communicate. People really should stop picking Trump as an example of a martyr to the cause of free speech, he's a really bad one. I know they want the narrative to be that "cancel culture" was just so powerful that it silenced a sitting President but it's just not working out that way.

ajross 5y ago

> Content moderation is de facto censorship. It simply is not. And the proof is that you can see in this very thread a bunch of flagged, dead comments that are still visible, still citable, and (importantly) whose posters are not guilty of crimes for their creation. I'm sorry, but no. Difficulty of finding information is not the same thing as censorship. And we have to stop pretending that it is. > Do you remember when Alex Jones was removed from everywhere in a couple of days? Nope, actually I don't. But interestingly: I absolutely know that Alex Jones' rhetoric is still pervasively accessible to anyone who wants to hear it. Here's his site, if you're having trouble finding it due to all the, ahem, "censorship": https://www.infowars.com/ https://www.infowars.com/

verisimi 5y ago
I'm sorry, yes. If major platforms de-platform you, in a co-ordinated fashion that's not censorship? This is all works on account of corporate policies - not law. Law would dictate that unless what was said was illegal, that a person had a right to say it. Which is supportive of the fact that we are living in a fascist (corporate + governance) system. That the legal system is now a joke.
- ajross 5y ago
  > If major platforms de-platform you, in a co-ordinated fashion that's not censorship? Not in a world where you can continue to post on Infowars or 4chan or reddit or HN or wherever instead, no. Why would it be? You really don't see the difference? In Russia, it is illegal to report on international perspectives about events in Ukraine. That content doesn't exist, and you can't link to it without committing a crime (and, likely, also using a ban evasion tool like a VPN). Do you have an example of an idea or perspective (even one!) that is being suppressed by "major platforms" in a "co-ordinated fashion" that I won't be able to refute with a simple link as I did above?
  - verisimi 5y ago
    I don't think you are taking my point. Yes, you can have a website and your own voice. But if you are being excluded from public platforms - not because you are doing anything illegal, but because a majority or even just the owner doesn't like your opinion - this is a genuine problem. You will live in an echo chamber. These are legal issues and there is legal framework already in existence to prevent illegal acts. Shops cannot refuse service to the public. But an online public platform - eg Twitter - is able to refuse. The ability to refer to a terms of service document that can justify stopping your usage of a public platform when a person has done nothing wrong, should not be legal. That you can be silenced can interpreted as a political act, eg Trump. You might agree with the political slant (but then how would you even hear about alternative views?). I really don't get how you can think or argue that voices are not being censored in the public domain.