3 ms·

> > it sounds more like you’re fine with it because you agree with who they’re censoring... > Yes… Well, at least you’re honest about supporting censorship of

> > it sounds more like you’re fine with it because you agree with who they’re censoring... > Yes… Well, at least you’re honest about supporting censorship of the “right” people. > I will worry about this when authoritative information about important topics gets removed from all platforms at the whim of one or two companies By then it’d already be too late. Though again I doubt you’d care even as long as the “right” people disappeared from your view. You don’t seem particularly worried about authoritarianism as long as the content you’ve been told is “harmful” has been “reviewed” and summarily removed.

manuelabeledo 3y ago
> Well, at least you’re honest about supporting censorship of the “right” people. I support that a media company is not forced to host content that is deemed against their ToS, especially when there are a myriad of publishers and alternatives out there. Is that censorship? Has this guy been silenced? He is still in YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, plus he is given air time in places like FOX news. Him complaining about censorship is akin to a billionaire crying about the cost of living. If we would consider this as "censorship", is porn being "censored" in YouTube? Is nazi content? And if so, should we force YouTube to host such things? Either way, the naive libertarian notion that everything should be allowed unless it harms others, does not fit here either, for a myriad of reasons, starting with the fact that "harm" is poorly defined, and there is a case to be made about this guy being actively harmful to society as a whole. But again, that is too big of an idea to fit in the libertarian framework.