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…”
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.
Except for when it’s not normal and people post about being unfairly banned while showing a ban message telling them why. Yes, it’s bad moderation and you should move to a better discussion place if that’s how they run the place. It’s not how all social media is though.
I did read all of that btw, I was just commenting on the parts of the discussion where you were talking about the definition of censorship and comparing it to freedom of speech suppression. There are different levels, some more acceptable than others.
And my solution is still valid, even if the initial reason for posting was simply overpowered moderation.
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.
My point was the indecency of prosecution without explanation.
It’s impractical too, to boot somebody without telling them why, as somebody else in this thread pointed out.
Another person in this thread suggested that such discussions are wasted effort. That such discussion, and the healthy society it engenders, is not the aim of those in control. (Ie the mods’ bosses). That they simply want max control for min cost.
Using inflammatory language as a way to make your point seem more valid is just manipulative, and betrays the general lack of a point that you have.
You were not “prosecuted”, and I’ll be generous and assume you meant “persecuted”, which again is such an inappropriate use of that word given the mildness of the indecency you experienced.
Is it a dick move to ban without explanation? Yes. Most sites don’t do that though, so I assume you have some very specific grievance that prompted this.
You weren’t banned from the world, and there are many instances in the fediverse, so take your speech to any number of instances where the mods aren’t dicks.
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.
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.
My original point was the indecency of prosecution without explanation, actually.
You were not prosecuted.
Was I persecuted?
It’s a weighty point that I am discussing elsewhere.
You were not persecuted.
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…”
(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.
Except for when it’s not normal and people post about being unfairly banned while showing a ban message telling them why. Yes, it’s bad moderation and you should move to a better discussion place if that’s how they run the place. It’s not how all social media is though.
I did read all of that btw, I was just commenting on the parts of the discussion where you were talking about the definition of censorship and comparing it to freedom of speech suppression. There are different levels, some more acceptable than others.
And my solution is still valid, even if the initial reason for posting was simply overpowered moderation.
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.
My point was the indecency of prosecution without explanation.
It’s impractical too, to boot somebody without telling them why, as somebody else in this thread pointed out.
Another person in this thread suggested that such discussions are wasted effort. That such discussion, and the healthy society it engenders, is not the aim of those in control. (Ie the mods’ bosses). That they simply want max control for min cost.
Using inflammatory language as a way to make your point seem more valid is just manipulative, and betrays the general lack of a point that you have.
You were not “prosecuted”, and I’ll be generous and assume you meant “persecuted”, which again is such an inappropriate use of that word given the mildness of the indecency you experienced.
Is it a dick move to ban without explanation? Yes. Most sites don’t do that though, so I assume you have some very specific grievance that prompted this.
You weren’t banned from the world, and there are many instances in the fediverse, so take your speech to any number of instances where the mods aren’t dicks.
Actually, it’s the rule in Lemmy and Reddit. Apple’s app store has a similar policy.
So yes, ubiquitous. A perversion worth discussing. So here we are.