What is with these vague, open-ended questions with no effort put in to try to provide any detail or literally anything to engage with?

Now instead of answering your question I have to ask a bunch of questions myself:

• How, exactly, are they wrong?
  • Are they merely incorrect?
  • Are they actively spreading disinformation?
• Is their speech causing harm? If so what kind?
  • Is it direct and measurable like hate-speech or incitements to violence?
  • Or is it something vague and nebulous like 'decadence' or 'societal harm'?
• Who decided that they are wrong?
  • Experts?
  • Moderation teams?
  • Bureaucrats?
• And most importantly, who is doing the censoring?
  • In what form?
  • With what authority?
  • In what medium?
  • For what purpose (actual, not stated)?

Context matters, friend. Please provide some.

No. People often disagree on what is right and wrong. Then the stronger part will just censor the weaker part regardless of who is wrong.

"Wrong" can mean so many things.

Removing misinformation isn't censorship, for example. Similar with removing off-topic threads or comments.

Removing illegal content is censorship if the law is unjust (eg. political dissent restrictions) but not if the law is just (eg. CSAM removal).

Removing immoral content is way dicier, because morality is not fully mapped, and what one person thinks is immoral might seem perfectly moral to another (eg. blasphemy or profane language). I personally would not removed content I found immoral unless it violated community standards, and would consider such removals an overreach but not censorship unless it was selectively targeted at an individual or group.

I guess by my lights to be censorship it has to be:

• subjective

• unjust

• systematic

Removing something objectively incorrect or in the wrong place is not censorship. Removing something justly proscribed is not censorship.

Removing a thread when one viewpoint or group posts about it but not when another posts about it IS censorship.

No. The wrong person should be debated openly IMO

If the vast majority of people thought about anything that escaped the material world, maybe. As it is, anyone who understands how stupid, gullible, emotional, irrational, selfish and greedy human beings can be (especially those without any sort of moral code, like irreligious hedonists, for instance) and has the money to flood media with propaganda will inevitably make people believe what he or she wants.

The comments here are very idealistic, but I live in reality. I know there's one wise man out of a hundred, the others focus on practical matters and football. Unless you can just snap your fingers and make people, for instance, not be stupid and intellectually lazy enough to vote for a M/BILLIONAIRE "wise leader of the proletariat" (honestly, every time I type something Trump related I wonder how we've made it this far as a species... then I remember the atomic bomb is not even a century old 🤷), then no, you WILL have to censor some folks. Or, said passively, some folks need to be censored... Sadly, in many countries, the ones who do the mass immoral brainwashing also have the political power to silence and incarcerate those who oppose them.

If they're wrong, I think they should be censored.

All the antivaxers, all the flerfs, all the creationists, all the idiot influencers. They shouldn't be allowed a platform to spread misinformation.

It's not about right or wrong.

Censorship is okay if the content harms those who hear it. You censor a naked man jacking off in a kindergarden because it will traumatize the children (and possibly more people).

If someone consistently spreads misinformation or disinformation that sounds convincing and will likely harm people (think donald trump and alice weidel) you need to censor them to protect those who are unable to understand the vileness of their agenda.

Equally, you need to educate both children to not go home with the nice man and the public to not listen to fascists and neoliberals.