I think we should be careful in using the word 'censored.' A lot of these people were not censored, they were removed because their behaviour was terrible.
When an individual is prevented from freely expressing himself or herself, that is censorship, and such a person has been censored.
The medium or method of expression involved, and the rationale behind the suppression, are both irrelevant.
"Censored" is a very applicable term to use when an individual has been banned from an online discussion forum, and/or the content that he or she posted has been removed.
That's not censorship (which legally refers to government restricting speech). What you have issues with is the community guidelines. If you want the rules to be 'let me have a free for all on expression,' don't enter communities that have rules about being civil and respectful. Or just jump on Twitter...
Now that the facts are settled, let me mention that what you are doing is extremely common. A word has acquired a negative association, so you try to redefine it so your side can engage in the behavior it previously condemned. The exact same thing happened to 'racism'.
It's not, it's really not. It's abiding by the community rules.
If you come into my house and be an arse, I'm going to make you leave. That's not censorship, you're just not behaving respectfully and being told to leave.
It's a form of censorship that benefits the community that implements it. If I post "I'M GOING TO FUCK YOUR WIFE" in response to every thread, you are most likely going to want to "censor" me.
Typical motte and bailey example. Are all-caps expletive-ridden posts the only thing that gets censored? Or is it also stuff like citing factual statistics from reliable sources?
we can no longer allow any posts, comments, or other content that shows a POC as the aggressor [..] This absolutely means any videos, as well as news reports, photos, personal stories, data/statistics, police reports, or any other form of media. - http://archive.is/L7V0T
Err, ok, I guess. Mods making stupid rules for community engagement are theirs to make. If you disagree you either don't break them or go elsewhere. Also, are these facts being raised within a topical discussion or dragging it out of context?
Going in and saying the stuff they've stated is explicitly banned (regardless of its political or irrational nature) and then getting banned is a rather interesting way to claim censorship.
Then you argue that you, and not someone else, should be deciding what censorship is warranted.
Where did I argue that? I just pointed out that what reddit is doing is censorship, and that painting it as only banning spam and vulgarity is false and deceptive.
You're free to argue that they have a right to censor, and even that they're using that right appropriately, just don't lie about how they're using it.
It's implied. You agree that some censorship is appropriate but disagree with what that is, suggesting that you know better than someone else which censorship is appropriate.
It's convenient that one can't point out deceptive characterization of censorship, or highlight the nature of existing censorship, without implying a bunch of strawman positions that are easy to argue against, isn't it?
Comments
I think we should be careful in using the word 'censored.' A lot of these people were not censored, they were removed because their behaviour was terrible.
When an individual is prevented from freely expressing himself or herself, that is censorship, and such a person has been censored.
The medium or method of expression involved, and the rationale behind the suppression, are both irrelevant.
"Censored" is a very applicable term to use when an individual has been banned from an online discussion forum, and/or the content that he or she posted has been removed.
That's not censorship (which legally refers to government restricting speech). What you have issues with is the community guidelines. If you want the rules to be 'let me have a free for all on expression,' don't enter communities that have rules about being civil and respectful. Or just jump on Twitter...
Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
They oppose government censorship. - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship (Now why would they have to specify government censorship, if there is no other kind?)
Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. - https://www.aclu.org/documents/what-censorship
Originally neutral in tone, the term has come to mean the suppression of ideas or images by the government or others with authority. - https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/censorship
Now that the facts are settled, let me mention that what you are doing is extremely common. A word has acquired a negative association, so you try to redefine it so your side can engage in the behavior it previously condemned. The exact same thing happened to 'racism'.
That is still censorship
It's not, it's really not. It's abiding by the community rules.
If you come into my house and be an arse, I'm going to make you leave. That's not censorship, you're just not behaving respectfully and being told to leave.
It's a form of censorship that benefits the community that implements it. If I post "I'M GOING TO FUCK YOUR WIFE" in response to every thread, you are most likely going to want to "censor" me.
Typical motte and bailey example. Are all-caps expletive-ridden posts the only thing that gets censored? Or is it also stuff like citing factual statistics from reliable sources?
we can no longer allow any posts, comments, or other content that shows a POC as the aggressor [..] This absolutely means any videos, as well as news reports, photos, personal stories, data/statistics, police reports, or any other form of media. - http://archive.is/L7V0T
In general, any kind of factual correction that goes against moderator-preferred narratives is at risk of censorship: https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/v5fzxu/hmmm...
https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/hxedi8/was_...
For pointing out overt racism against whites: https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/v5jfek/was_...
Or for saying pets are part of the family in a different subreddit: https://old.reddit.com/r/WatchRedditDie/comments/uxxrpp/got_...
Err, ok, I guess. Mods making stupid rules for community engagement are theirs to make. If you disagree you either don't break them or go elsewhere. Also, are these facts being raised within a topical discussion or dragging it out of context?
Going in and saying the stuff they've stated is explicitly banned (regardless of its political or irrational nature) and then getting banned is a rather interesting way to claim censorship.
You grant that some censorship is warranted. Then you argue that you, and not someone else, should be deciding what censorship is warranted.
Do you see the problem there?
Where did I argue that? I just pointed out that what reddit is doing is censorship, and that painting it as only banning spam and vulgarity is false and deceptive.
You're free to argue that they have a right to censor, and even that they're using that right appropriately, just don't lie about how they're using it.
It's implied. You agree that some censorship is appropriate but disagree with what that is, suggesting that you know better than someone else which censorship is appropriate.
It's convenient that one can't point out deceptive characterization of censorship, or highlight the nature of existing censorship, without implying a bunch of strawman positions that are easy to argue against, isn't it?
Was it you who flagged my post? Can you please argue to the moderators that my expression should go uncensored?