4 ms·

> Even a sixth grader knows it's not censorship to choose to not hand your megaphone to an asshole or troll If you give your megaphone to everyone by default (

> Even a sixth grader knows it's not censorship to choose to not hand your megaphone to an asshole or troll If you give your megaphone to everyone by default (ie: anyone can sign up for Twitter), but then take it away from certain people you don’t like, it’s censorship. Even if you tell people ahead of time, “hey, you can’t use this megaphone to say X”, and then take it away when they say X, it’s still censorship. It might be justifiable, it might not be, but it’s definitely within the definition of censorship and if you can’t start there, you’re arguing in bad faith to avoid uncomfortable connotations.

themitigating 5y ago
People sign up for twitter by choice
tablespoon 5y ago
> If you give your megaphone to everyone by default (ie: anyone can sign up for Twitter), but then take it away from certain people you don’t like, it’s censorship. Even if you tell people ahead of time, “hey, you can’t use this megaphone to say X”, and then take it away when they say X, it’s still censorship. No it isn't. Those conditions are made up, and seem retroactively concocted to label getting banned from twitter as "censorship." And if it is, all you've done is make "censorship" look appealing and reasonable, which I doubt is what you were going for.
- nickysielicki 5y ago
  I am merely here to advocate for the position that words have meaning and that (in this case) they have well-defined meaning. I could not care less whether what I’m saying makes censorship look appealing and reasonable to you, I am perfectly fine with leaving room for you to advocate for censorship, even if I wouldn’t do the same. But it is censorship. Moderation is not censorship. A moderator in a debate does not censor, he directs conversation. The fact that we’ve appropriated the term to mean censorship doesn’t mean that the definitions actually change. Censorship is simply preventing people from saying what they would like to say.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > But it is censorship. Moderation is not censorship. A moderator in a debate does not censor, he directs conversation.... > Censorship is simply preventing people from saying what they would like to say. You're contradicting yourself. What if someone wants to disrupt the conversation? Depending on the audience and venue, disruption can take many forms.
    - dec0dedab0de 5y ago
      Then you should probably suppress or delete the objectionable disruption or the person causing said disruption.
    - SkyBelow 5y ago
      A moderator would have the power to censor as some sort of final option when other moderation techniques failed. Generally we don't have instances where the moderator needs to use it. So a moderator moderates, and extreme cases of moderation may censor. But there is still a distinction between censorship and moderation even if there are situations where one involves the other.
  - bandyaboot 5y ago
    Moderation in a formal debate and moderation on online platforms and forums have come to mean different things. For better or for worse, the term does largely relate to censorship in the context of online communication.

themitigating 5y ago

People sign up for twitter by choice

tablespoon 5y ago

> If you give your megaphone to everyone by default (ie: anyone can sign up for Twitter), but then take it away from certain people you don’t like, it’s censorship. Even if you tell people ahead of time, “hey, you can’t use this megaphone to say X”, and then take it away when they say X, it’s still censorship. No it isn't. Those conditions are made up, and seem retroactively concocted to label getting banned from twitter as "censorship." And if it is, all you've done is make "censorship" look appealing and reasonable, which I doubt is what you were going for.

nickysielicki 5y ago
I am merely here to advocate for the position that words have meaning and that (in this case) they have well-defined meaning. I could not care less whether what I’m saying makes censorship look appealing and reasonable to you, I am perfectly fine with leaving room for you to advocate for censorship, even if I wouldn’t do the same. But it is censorship. Moderation is not censorship. A moderator in a debate does not censor, he directs conversation. The fact that we’ve appropriated the term to mean censorship doesn’t mean that the definitions actually change. Censorship is simply preventing people from saying what they would like to say.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > But it is censorship. Moderation is not censorship. A moderator in a debate does not censor, he directs conversation.... > Censorship is simply preventing people from saying what they would like to say. You're contradicting yourself. What if someone wants to disrupt the conversation? Depending on the audience and venue, disruption can take many forms.
  - dec0dedab0de 5y ago
    Then you should probably suppress or delete the objectionable disruption or the person causing said disruption.
  - SkyBelow 5y ago
    A moderator would have the power to censor as some sort of final option when other moderation techniques failed. Generally we don't have instances where the moderator needs to use it. So a moderator moderates, and extreme cases of moderation may censor. But there is still a distinction between censorship and moderation even if there are situations where one involves the other.
- bandyaboot 5y ago
  Moderation in a formal debate and moderation on online platforms and forums have come to mean different things. For better or for worse, the term does largely relate to censorship in the context of online communication.