this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2023
552 points (89.3% liked)
Lemmy.world Support
3232 readers
23 users here now
Lemmy.world Support
Welcome to the official Lemmy.world Support community! Post your issues or questions about Lemmy.world here.
This community is for issues related to the Lemmy World instance only. For Lemmy software requests or bug reports, please go to the Lemmy github page.
This community is subject to the rules defined here for lemmy.world.
To open a support ticket
You can also DM https://lemmy.world/u/lwreport or email [email protected] (PGP Supported) if you need to reach our directly to the admin team.
Follow us for server news π
Outages π₯
https://status.lemmy.world/
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Except it's literally not the suppression or prohibition of anything.
It's not censorship if you don't let people into your house. It's not censorship if you don't let people paint on your walls.
This isn't the government. This isn't the prevention or suppression or public speech. They can (and do) post that shit. You are free to go read it.
Almost no media platform is required to host or publish any content they don't want to. What do you not understand about this?
I gave a dictionary definition of censorship and you're trying to make analogies to trespassing and vandalism. Just use the definition.
Censorship isn't exclusive to governments. Private entities and public corporations can perform acts of internal censorship or even self censor in external communications.
There are countries that ban pornography, however someone outside the country is still free to see said pornography. Does the suppression of pornography in that country cease to be censorship simply because some people are still free to see it?
Yep, and that's why there are many corporations that self censor according to their own sensibilities. And that what this whole thread is about, the question of whether to censor rammy.site by suppressing their content via defederation.
There's nothing confusing about this unless you have mixed feelings about the word censorship itself but still support the suppression of speech you don't like(and to reiterate, i find the content on rammy.site bigoted and high objectionable, and want it censored)
You can continue to incorrectly call this censorship if you want, but you are going to continue to be wrong.
It's obvious that you have difficulty with disambiguating the appropriate levels of abstraction for use with the words based on your examples. At this point, it's either intentional rhetoric designed to try and confuse others or pride and ignorance. I am starting to lean towards bad actor.
I'm having difficulty yes.
The fediverse is akin to a network, instances join this network and relay content to and from each other.
The internet is a network, networks upon networks, and nodes in the network relay content to and from each other.
If a country decides to block objectionable content on the internet, the news article covering this will use the term censorship. Whether it's porn, anti-religious content, or inconvenient history, they will call cutting off that part of the internet, whether via filtering or total disconnection, censorship. Even though this falls in your example of "you donβt let people into your house", because those countries aren't letting certain packets into their borders, it is still commonly referred to as censorship.
So, if an instance on the fediverse decides to opt out of relaying objectionable content, thus suppressing that content, how does it not meet the criteria for censorship if defederation is analogous to countries performing censorship via blocking internet content?
Except an instance isn't a country. It isn't a government. This instance isn't operated by or for a government. Most instances are owned and operated by a single individual or a small group of people.
If you owned a coffee shop, and you banned someone for standing in a booth screaming racial slurs, that's not censorship. It is irrelevant how that person got to the coffee shop. It isn't even censorship for Starbucks to ban someone from all of their stores.
To make the analogy more complete. Suppose you had two entrances to your shop. Those entrances adjourn to neighboring restaurants/shops. Suppose one of your neighbors screams racial slurs in their own shop. You can't stop them except by asking nicely. Suppose they don't stop. They attract a bunch of people like themselves who scream racial slurs all day. Now, you could ban the people who come in to your shop screaming slurs through that entrance one by one sure... Or you could shut that entrance and lock it. Shutting the door isn't censorship.
You haven't made it illegal for them to scram racial slurs. You haven't imposed on their rights to freely operate their business as they wish. But you not keeping that entrance open isn't censorship.
It would be censorship if the government made it illegal to scream racial slurs. It would be censorship if you locked them out of and prevented them from using something they owned themselves... (It's not censorship for a landlord to kick a tenant out of a building they own for spray painting hate speech on the building for example).
Have we not established that censorship isn't something solely done at the government level? I was using government censorship as an example, but censorship can be performed by companies, groups of people, and individuals.
Also, why are you not addressing the dictionary definition of censorship? Why are you not addressing my example? Why are you ignoring my comparison of a network to a network, and instead trying to compare a network to a shop, apartment, or restaurant?
It's really easy to pretend this isn't censorship is you ignore the literal dictionary definition of the word and direct analogies(a federation list is more akin to a peering list than it is to a restaurant...), and instead supply a convoluted abstract example of your own.
I believe I'm satisfied that the issue at hand is cognitive dissonance on your part, wherein you hold censorship as morally objectionable, but are conflicted because in this instance censorship is a tool you wish(rightly) to be wielded.
Alright, corporate censorship requires that there be the threat of monetary loss or loss of access that will result in loss of money. So this can't be corporate censorship.
It's not self censorship because it's not a person censoring their own work.
That leaves only the possibility for it to be censorship by an organizing body, which requires that the organizing body be the principle body through which all media is distributed or authorized for distribution. Any single instance does not meet this definition. It is arguably possible that if the process by which activitypub was centralized under a single authority body, and that body decided to remove any instance spreading a specific message that could be a form of censorship.
You claim that I am ignoring your examples. It should be immediately obvious that my counter example is your argument reworded to be non technical. I'm sorry that you don't understand this or what it means.
You claim that I am ignoring the dictionary definition. I am not. Once again, you claiming something to be true doesn't make it true. Defederation is not the suppression of anything.
I'm sorry that you don't understand this. I don't know how else to tell you.
I haven't once insulted you in this thread before this but Go fuck yourself.
Maan, you're getting wrongly downvoted to hell, and I just wanted to stop, and give you some admiration, and thanks for being able to apply critical thought, and impartiality.
There's so much cognitive dissonance in these threads.