You aren’t being “censored”, and you don’t have a point. You can spout whatever shitty point of view got you banned on the street with a sign if you want, nobody will stop you.
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!
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 in that same comment, so not sure why you feel the need to point it out to me.
In the context of this post by butthurt OP who doesn’t understand things, the distinction between censorship and violation of free speech is way too complicated.
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?
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.
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…”
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.
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.
Fella, go outside, breath fresh air, eat something you like and please get over that banning you receive some time ago.
You’re starting to sound like a 12 year old.
Maybe. But in the meantime let’s discuss my point.
You aren’t being “censored”, and you don’t have a point. You can spout whatever shitty point of view got you banned on the street with a sign if you want, nobody will stop you.
Actually, when they remove your post, that’s literal censorship. Look it up.
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!
by government. Private entities don’t have to enable your speech if they don’t want to.
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 in that same comment, so not sure why you feel the need to point it out to me.
Generally speaking, yes, they’re different.
In the context of this post by butthurt OP who doesn’t understand things, the distinction between censorship and violation of free speech is way too complicated.
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?
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 mod doesn’t like it, they can kick you out.
Make your own site and say whatever you want IN YOUR OWN HOUSE, and nobody can stop you.
If it’s not worth making your own site, then you are more concerned with being heard than being censored.
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.
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…”
What? No. You can’t just walk in, say some dumb shit and decide that it’s your house.
That’s nonsense.
Your original point was the equivalent of “Stepping on Legos is literally the same as land mines, amiright?”
No, it’s not, and you’re not a victim.
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.
Come on. It literally fits the definition.
But instead of wallowing in semantic quibbles, let’s address my actual point.
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.