3 ms·
You grant that some censorship is warranted. Then you argue that you, and not someone else, should be deciding what censorship is warranted. Do you see the pro
by fugalfervor 3y ago
You grant that some censorship is warranted. Then you argue that you, and not someone else, should be deciding what censorship is warranted.
Do you see the problem there?
- NoRelToEmber 3y ago> Then you argue that you, and not someone else, should be deciding what censorship is warranted. Where did I argue that? I just pointed out that what reddit is doing is censorship, and that painting it as only banning spam and vulgarity is false and deceptive. You're free to argue that they have a right to censor, and even that they're using that right appropriately, just don't lie about how they're using it.
- fugalfervor 3y ago> Where did I argue that? It's implied. You agree that some censorship is appropriate but disagree with what that is, suggesting that you know better than someone else which censorship is appropriate.
- NoRelToEmber 3y agoIt's convenient that one can't point out deceptive characterization of censorship, or highlight the nature of existing censorship, without implying a bunch of strawman positions that are easy to argue against, isn't it?
- fugalfervor 3y ago[flagged]
- fugalfervor 3y agoWas it you who flagged my post? Can you please argue to the moderators that my expression should go uncensored?