Totalitarians, fascists and other scary governments prosecute you without telling you what you did, and everybody agrees that this is an evil practice. But now it's normal and accepted on social media
-
It's literally not.
If you come into my house and say something I don't approve of, I can kick your ass out.
If Facebook or Reddit doesn't like it, they can kick you out.
If a Lemmy mood doesn't like it, they can kick you out.
Make your own site and say whatever you want IN YOUR OWN HOUSE nobody can stop you.
If it's not worth making your own site, then you are more concerned with being heard than being censored.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Absolutely not. Social media companies do not persecute you in any shape or form. At most the can ban you from using their platforms. That's it.
Being persecuted by the government is an entirely different matter.
And bless your heart for living such a privileged life that you think those 2 things are even on the same level to begin with
-
In what court are you being prosecuted? State, federal? What laws are you accused of breaking?
-
If you took your own advice, you wouldn’t have so many comments of yours deleted.
-
What exactly do you mean by "prosecution" in the context of social media?
-
Censorship is suppression or prohibition of speech
by government. Private entities don't have to enable your speech if they don't want to.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
If it makes you happy to call it that, then fine. But comparing that to government actually suppressing your speech is childish and lacking any nuance or common sense.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Come on. It literally fits the definition.
But instead of wallowing in semantic quibbles, let's address my actual point.
-
Penalizing a transgressor.
-
Oh so network television doesn’t employ censors? Your distinction of government censorship is just flat out incorrect.
You’re confusing censorship with freedom of speech. And I’m arguing the same point as you about private entities hosting your speech.
-
How does being a moderator make one an expert on common decency?
-
Seeing as how this is a conversation involving us, doesn't that make it "our house"? I mean without us, the whole point of the "house" ceases to exist.
Think about that.
But back to my actual point. Please.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
I already addressed it. You can say what you want, and private websites have no argument to host literally anything that you want to say.
Why don’t you try addressing my actual point this time instead of quibbling on semantics. I already granted that you can call it censorship, but that does not equate with what is meant when people discuss government censorship.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
But that does not address my point. My point was that it is evil to "disinvite" without explanation.
-
One needed not to be an expert to see that your comment were inappropriate and broke the rules.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
We are censored and banned. This is the form of prosecution to which I refer. This is obvious. Let's not quibble over semantics.
If you will read my post, I do not refer to the prosecution. I refer to prosecution without explanation.
-
So it's just efficient? Ok.
Explaining your actions may be the right thing to do but right is not the point. Control is the point.
And 99% of the people here never say anything deviant enough to get censored over anyway. So what's a few edge cases.
That's kinda cynical, which I can appreciate.
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Sure, you and I can kick anyone out of your houses for any reason or no reason. But it's kind of a duck move to not tell the person you're booting what they did.
-
You know what's appropriate, the moderator knows what's appropriate, and anybody who disagrees is wrong.
And anybody who asks for an explanation is just trolling.
That's a rather massive and arrogant assumption.
-
In a federated social media you can literally either find a group instance with a similar mindset as you that will let you post whatever it is you feel is being censored, or you can set up your own instance and be totally free to post it. That post and/or your instance might get blocked by others, but you have full freedom to put it there to be blocked. If you think people have to read what you say without the option to not read more, then that's a different thing altogether and you might rethink your points. It's a form of "if everyone is an asshole..."
