3 ms·

>I didn't see the OP advocating for censorship, but for the enablement of moderation for unacceptable content within a community. This is the same thing. Facil

>I didn't see the OP advocating for censorship, but for the enablement of moderation for unacceptable content within a community. This is the same thing. Facilitating and encouraging the use of moderation policies which prohibit speech of users is censorship. I've often found that Americans confused "censorship" with "violating the Constitution." Most of us are not given Constitution protections because we don't live in America. Further, the Constitution only covers some kinds of free speech, not all. Censorship is much more broad than the Constitution, and covers private companies censoring citizens.

HelloMcFly 4y ago
> This is the same thing. Facilitating and encouraging the use of moderation policies which prohibit speech of users is censorship. You are using "censorship" as a big scary word when talking about generalities. I can't quite get a clear picture of what you actually believe. Come down to my level and talk specifics vs. generalities: 1) Do you think that individuals or communities creating a content-specific space for user interaction should not have any right or ability to moderate the content? 2) Do you think individuals or communities creating a space dedicated to specific interest, hobby, or lifestyle should have no ability to moderate that content? 3) Abstracting a level higher, should all space for user-generated conversation and content necessarily welcome all contributions? In other words, should everything goes, everywhere, in all communities where user interaction is invited? Or are you just arguing the point semantically? I truly, sincerely understand the point you are making but I also have no idea what you're advocating for.