Consider the way we behave on Lemmy. We have moderators, removing posts, banning, and we have downvotes too. And the majority definitely approves of that stuff.
The majority opinion is that if you got censored, banned or heavily downvoted then you deserve it for being bad. Quite the opposite of Voltaire.
No, it’s not. It’s a misconception on the very fundamental level of the concepts we are talking about.
Moderating an online forum and state-sponsored censorship are two wildly different things. The former is in many circumstances legally required while the latter is legally prohibited (in most cases).
Freedom of speech means that the government is not allowed to interfer with your speech (with exceptions). It doesn’t mean that everyone has to listen to your bad takes let alone has to host them on their privately owned website.
Who does something matters just as much as what is done. Same as you can’t claim that the police is kidnapping you when they arrest you for murdering your neighbour.
These basics are so basic that it is hard to believe you don’t understand them. If you really don’t understand them, read up on just the very basics of the concept of rule of law and the basic rights one has and how they apply.
It’s more likely though that you do understand but just want to argue in bad faith, in which case it is not a conversation either.
Have you considered that most people like an accurate reflection of how people think about your opinion? They don’t want you to shut up, they want you to understand your opinion is unpopular and confront you with that.
There’s a big difference between an opinion that’s unpopular and an opinion that’s actively damaging or inciting. One is worth a discussion, the other is actively stifling discussion in various ways.
In my experience with the public, in social media, the majority prefers agreement and dislikes contradiction. And any means to that is ok. I think it’s as simple as that.
Consider the way we behave on Lemmy. We have moderators, removing posts, banning, and we have downvotes too. And the majority definitely approves of that stuff.
The majority opinion is that if you got censored, banned or heavily downvoted then you deserve it for being bad. Quite the opposite of Voltaire.
Look, another numpty who thinks that moderation in a privately run forum is the same thing as state-sponsored censorship!
Because of course getting banned for not following the house rules is totally the same as getting disappeared for talking bad about the government.
Moderation on a website is to censorship what getting kicked out of someone’s house is to deportation.
Being against people getting deported doesn’t mean that you think that anyone should be allowed to do whatever they want in the home of other people.
It’s a conversation. Try to engage.
He did, you aren’t, thereby exposing your sophistry.
You’re uninterested in the truth, just in “winning an argument”.
Well the fellow disagrees with you. He says it isn’t even a conversation. Lol.
No, it’s not. It’s a misconception on the very fundamental level of the concepts we are talking about.
Moderating an online forum and state-sponsored censorship are two wildly different things. The former is in many circumstances legally required while the latter is legally prohibited (in most cases).
Freedom of speech means that the government is not allowed to interfer with your speech (with exceptions). It doesn’t mean that everyone has to listen to your bad takes let alone has to host them on their privately owned website.
Who does something matters just as much as what is done. Same as you can’t claim that the police is kidnapping you when they arrest you for murdering your neighbour.
These basics are so basic that it is hard to believe you don’t understand them. If you really don’t understand them, read up on just the very basics of the concept of rule of law and the basic rights one has and how they apply.
It’s more likely though that you do understand but just want to argue in bad faith, in which case it is not a conversation either.
Have you considered that most people like an accurate reflection of how people think about your opinion? They don’t want you to shut up, they want you to understand your opinion is unpopular and confront you with that.
There’s a big difference between an opinion that’s unpopular and an opinion that’s actively damaging or inciting. One is worth a discussion, the other is actively stifling discussion in various ways.
In my experience with the public, in social media, the majority prefers agreement and dislikes contradiction. And any means to that is ok. I think it’s as simple as that.
Yes, that’s true, the majority seems to be for censorship. That’s no excuse for you to be, too.
The majority likes censorship and dictatorship. It may protest it, but it likes it.
That’s something to consider.