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

[email protected]

Actually, when they remove your post, that's literal censorship. Look it up.

[email protected]

Censorship is suppression or prohibition of speech. As I already said, you’re free to say whatever you want, so you are not being censored. When you go outside to touch grass, as has been suggested, then you can practice saying whatever you want to whomever you see!

If you think privately hosted websites are obligated to host whatever garbage the worst of the Internet can create, because deleting anything ever is “censorship”, then you are wrong. Imagine being so entitled!

[email protected]

It isn't an evil practice because evil people practice it. It's just an evil practice.

Can we agree on that?

[email protected]

When your post is removed, that's literally suppression of speech. Therefore it falls under the term "censorship". I feel pedantic to drive that into the ground like this. But how is this not clear?

[email protected]

People have freedom. This includes the freedom to allow you or disallow you from being around them. You cannot simply break into someone's house and talk to them if they don't want you to, for instance.

Governments do not get this freedom. Governments should and frequently do get constraints that individuals should not.

Here, we are individuals, not governments. This service was made by a bunch of randos, it's theirs. Not all of ours. We are here, in their house, because they invited us. They can disinvite us any time they want, they should and do have that freedom.

Rhynoplaz

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]

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

EleventhHour

In what court are you being prosecuted? State, federal? What laws are you accused of breaking?

EleventhHour

If you took your own advice, you wouldn’t have so many comments of yours deleted.

missingno

What exactly do you mean by "prosecution" in the context of social media?

Nougat

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]

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]

Come on. It literally fits the definition.

But instead of wallowing in semantic quibbles, let's address my actual point.

[email protected]

Penalizing a transgressor.

[email protected]

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.

[email protected]

How does being a moderator make one an expert on common decency?

[email protected]

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]

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]

But that does not address my point. My point was that it is evil to "disinvite" without explanation.

EleventhHour

One needed not to be an expert to see that your comment were inappropriate and broke the rules.