> this entire comment section is linked surrounds piracy--which for better or worse is illegal, just like child porn So is "jaywalking", but we don't bring the

> this entire comment section is linked surrounds piracy--which for better or worse is illegal, just like child porn So is "jaywalking", but we don't bring them up in the same discussion because copyright infringement is not in any way comparable to exploitation of minors. > and it is absolute non-sensical to argue that spam is something we opt into. [...] and to even imply that people can opt-out of actual spam is wild. go ahead, set up your own email server, don't "censor" any spam, and attempt to opt-out. Firstly, I was obviously referring to spam filtering, not spam itself. Secondly, spam filtering is not censorship. If the government or private entity unilaterally decided to stop emails from <Political Party> from reaching your inbox, that would be censorship. When you yourself decide to use a spam filter, which you're free to customize to your liking - that's not censorship. There is no equivalence. If you're equating content filtering which you have full control over, with censorship, then any discussion is indeed a waste of time. > if you can't distinguish between the organizations i listed (restaurants, bars, forums, etc...) curating their audience and some version of wholesale "individuals free speech" then obviously the nuance needed to talk about this in any meaningful manner doesn't exist. The person above the "Who gets to decide?" question was not talking about "censorship" at private in-person establishments, but wholesale censorship of communication because they perceive the entire concept of freedom of expression as a net negative to society. Perhaps you should read it again. > now that multiple actual state backed attacks on free-speech are happening across the country. from book bans in libraries, to book bans in schools, to silencing teachers, to drag shows. there have now been 100s (if not 1000s) of these instances I don't understand, you seemingly agree that "who decides" is an extremely important question when someone proposes "censorship", even though you just spent several paragraphs dismissing it as ridiculous. It shouldn't be "them" deciding what gets censored, right? So if not them, do you get to decide what gets censored? > again, there's no false-equivalence as the topic has been so muddied by disingenuous bad-faith actors I agree, dragging user-controlled spam filters into the debate about government censorship of speech is disingenuous and bad faith.