6 ms·

It clearly is censorship. Maybe you're conflating censorship with the First Amendment? The Constitution only protects certain kinds of speech. Only that of citi

• Klonoar 3y ago
  So just to be clear: you consider it censorship when the rest of the world tells you "you cannot harass x group by utilizing this set of harmful language"?
  • mc32 3y ago
    It clearly is, what else would one call that? Perhaps it's censorship you agree with and others agree with and maybe I agree with some of it, but it's never the less censorship. It's also censorship when the government redacts documents, but we have granted the government some carve-outs in order to protect national security and other things, which over time has become abused just like your proposition would be abused. Also, language is not harmful. It may be abusive or offensive but it's not harmful. That's not to say people don't allow themselves to become affected by language --but one can be negatively affected by lots of language that isn't "hateful" but may be truthful or carry unwanted information.
    • Klonoar 3y ago
      No, censorship would be nobody being able to discuss these topics period on those platforms. That is fundamentally not happening. We've simply entered an era where you need to do it respectfully, which isn't that hard. Furthermore, language is demonstrably harmful by way of the weight we've given it over the years. We've also made strides in society in recognizing how to avoid using or enabling it in ways that harm marginalized groups. This isn't rocket science.