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
-
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..."
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
They mean "persecution"
-
OP is confusing "prosecution" with "persecution", thus making this whole thread impenetrable
-
[email protected]replied to [email protected] last edited by
Check the modlog, they usually cite which rule was broken. I think "evil" is a pretty strong word, unfair maybe, but lots of things are unfair without being evil.
-
(Does anybody actually read the post anymore?)
I addressed the act of prosecution without explanation. To remove a post without telling the person why they removed it. To tell them what rule was broken, or spirit contradicted, or even views offended. Anything!
But to just remove a post without conversation. That's just crappy. And everybody agrees that it's damn crappy. But it's considered normal now. Which is crazy.
That's what I want to discuss.
-
It definitely shows that the power structures have their hands in any relevant social media discussion. I would posit that mods pay critical role with that system.
Most recent example is modding we get on main subs re Luigi... Some how censorship on fedi was stronger than reddit, at least week post the denial of life.
The pattern of behaviour is is the same. Tjere is a topic, it need to be discussed a certain way, people generally small minorities will say wrong thing, they get removed. Narrative holds up.
With Luigi public sentiment was so strong that they could not suppress the genuine public opinion hence why reddit didn't even try for the first week.
Here we had mods argue all sorts of weird shit and none of it really landed. The rules are vague enough to remove any wrong think they need.
Mod logs will show a pattern of behaviour.
Israeli genocide in Gaza is another topic where mods shill regime narratives.
But theh don't do over everything, you can do culture war circle jerk all you want.
Also, mods are no uniform bit mods for each sub have their specific narrative and they will never accept discussions that would undermine it.
You can criticize Israel but only in sanctioned way.
Another example is kamala prez campaign... No discussion, either you shill her or you are removed.
And fedi ain't even a speck on social media land scape but we sure got a full blown gestapo field office to heard 50k monthly users lol
