• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -39 months ago

    You’re confused, you muddled your taking points - the 1st amendment applies to the us governments but the word censorship has no relation to that

    Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or “inconvenient”.[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions,[6] and other controlling bodies.

    So no I’m not talking about the first ammendment at all I’m talking about whiney babies crying that twitch doesn’t censor things they don’t like and if the topic is twitch banning content then I’m entirely accurate in doing so

    Please try to focus and think through what you’re saying in future

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      29 months ago

      You made it a 1st amendment topic by comparing private platform censorship to banning violent video games, which would be a government action that eventually gets a lawsuit seen before the supreme court.

      I’m not trying to convince you of anything. I make it a point not argue with people who resort to name calling and shaming others - these people aren’t here to debate facts or allow their opinions to be changed.

      I’m providing a counterpoint to your erroneous logic for other people to see and choose for themselves.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -19 months ago

        I’m very clearly talking about banning them on twitch, you really need to follow along. I never mentioned governments once.

        You think it’s OK for twitch to show gta6 to children as long as they don’t go in the strip club? A lot of people would argue that murder, drug dealing, theft, and all the other crime and immorality is actually worse. You might end up with a platform that only allows Nintendo’s most family-friendly shit.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          29 months ago

          I think it’s ok for the owners of a privately owned platform to make decisions for that platform. If they want to exclusively show nudity, GTA6, or drying paint, I’m all for their autonomy.

          Your autonomy allows you to utilize their platform or not based on their choices. If the absence of a focus on the groin, butt, and breasts on a green screen offends your values, I would suggest not visiting Twitch.

          To bring it back your original comment, enjoying a platform’s decision to desexualize content while also being opposed to a government ban on violent video games is perfectly reasonable. The two scenarios are entirely different in scope and and context.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            -19 months ago

            So you’ve totally changed your tone, why would you have commented what you did instead of saying ‘valid opion, I’m sure they’ll choose to do whatever they want based on public sentiment so you expressing your opion is a totally normal and acceptable thing to do’?

            You seem to want only people who agree with you to express their opinion, I’m not shocked of course that’s how censorship lovers slways think.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                19 months ago

                The first paragraph of this is brilliant projection.

                You’ve also made up a lot of weird lies and confusion simply to get around the fact that your assertion that only governments can do censorship is wrong and all this to defend a totally meaningless point because my argument is still 100% as valid if we use a more cumbersome word or phrase instead of censorship.

                Seriously read your own comment history and work on your issues.

                Oh and anyone interested in how deceptive he’s being in this rant, his statement about me being into conspiracies is from a post talking about knowledge fight and the absurdity of conspiracy theories. This is not someone that even understands the concept of arguing in good faith.