As a leftist I am sick and tired of censorship to a point that it infuriates me. I have had so many accounts on the internet banned on just about every site that it has completely handicapped my ability to use the internet as a source of great joy of having the freedom to express myself how I want to. I know I am not the only one who is furious about this and there are many more people who feel the same way. Right wingers are expected to be fascist and oppressive and the left is supposed to be the side who is against that and yet they left is just as bad at censoring as the right is and I don't understand how more people don't recognize how bad and illogical it is. We basically have 2 sides that love to censor.

Even "X" is supposed to be against censorship and yet still practices mass censorship and I have had multiple accounts shadow banned or fully banned from there.

Why can't there be a site like Youtube or Reddit where everything that is deemed against whatever rules they have is simply just given a disclaimer that the user who wants to view it just has to agree to it that they still want to view it? It is ridiculous that anybody likes anything that is "hardcore" or "edgy" or "outside of the box" including with their music tastes or comedy tastes or political opinions or whatever else it is they have basically nowhere to go in mainstream society and censorship has basically been accepted on both sides of the political spectrum.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 1 point 5 minutes ago (1 child)

Without any context, I don’t think anyone can offer any suggestions. Who banned you? And for what?

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 minute ago

    I'm just going to assume Op is having a meltdown because he cant find any child porn to watch.

    its the only reason I can think to be as vague as he is being. Anything else he'd have problem giving examples and specifics.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 28 minutes ago

    OP is coming off pretty hostile in a lot of the replies on this post.. Maybe the issue isn’t the opinions that are getting censored, maybe they’re getting banned because people (and mods) think they’re a bit of an ass.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 29 minutes ago

    You are the only common denominator between all those accounts that have gotten banned. I don't shy away from voicing unpopular opinions either, yet I virtually never get banned or even have my messages removed. It's usually not about what you say, but how you say it.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 2 hours ago*

    So many people in this thread trying to make this first amendment type deal. We’re fucking doomed.

    The answer is nobody, especially pitch fork terminally online communities like hard to swallow pills and act like tribal monkeys when you separate people with a screen.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 hours ago (13 children)

    Censorship is when a state or major institution (historically mostly the church) forces you to stay quiet. Not when private companies refuse to give you a podium. If you can still make your own blog with whatever opinion you have, there's no censorship.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 21 minutes ago

    It's censorship even when you self-censor your own speech.

    You're probably mixing this up with free speech which only defends you against prosecution for what you said but it doesn't entitle you to get a platform to say it. Social media platform kicking you out because they don't like your commentary is not infringing on your freedom of speech.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago (2 children)

    So if my boss threatens my job for speech outside the work place, that’s not censorship?

    Your qualifiers are batshit insane. Your are conflating the first amendment and even doing that poorly with the church.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 30 minutes ago

    So if my boss threatens my job for speech outside the work place, that’s not censorship?

    I'd say that is censorship, those are real consequences that would be enough to make people shut up. Which is very different from losing a podium by being banned from Facebook or whatever.

    I'm not American, I don't not conflate your first amendment with anything. I'm saying that being kicked from a podium for not following the rules of that podium is not censorship.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 hour ago*

    Your boss firing you for the wrong reason falls under labor law and worker protection, not censorship. Threatening you like that would be considered mobbing. I can threaten that I will beat you up if you don't delete that comment but that's also not censorship, that's harassment. To use car analogy, government refusing to give you a driving licensee would be infringing on your right to travel but me stilling your car would be simply theft. Different actions can lead to similar outcomes but they are still completely different crimes.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 0 points 2 hours ago (8 children)

    A private company doing censorship is still censorship.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 hour ago* (7 children)

    No it's not. If I run a private newspaper I decide what I want to publish or not. I don't have any obligation to publish every article sent to me. You probably understand how publishing newspaper cost money and why the owner/editor decides what goes in and what doesn't. Twitter also doesn't have any obligation to platform every comment that is published there. They pay for the infrastructure that hosts the content and they decide what to host. You can host your own mastodon instance and publish anything you wont. The government will not prevent you from doing it because that would be censorship. That's social science 101, very basic stuff.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago (1 child)

    Whether something qualifies as censorship isn't about whether a legal obligation exists to not censor.

    Censorship:

    Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are “offensive,” happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups.

    You probably understand how publishing newspaper cost money and why the owner/editor decides what goes in and what doesn’t.

    Are you familiar with how billionaires have been buying up and imposing their will on journalism on a massive scale?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 57 minutes ago*

    You probably think this quote proves your first statement but it doesn't. Private pressure groups is not the same as private companies.

    To explain this with a simple example... Let's say I want to publish a book with homosexual character. If a private pressure group forces government to prohibit such books and the publishers are legally forbidden from publishing such book - that's censorship. If I go to a Christian publisher (private company) and they say they don't want to publish it - it's not censorship.

    If I want to publish a book telling that Obama is a pedophile a publisher (private company) can tell me they don't want to publish it - that's not censorship. If I somehow publish that book, Obama can sue me and stop distribution of that book through a court order - that's also not censorship.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 1 point 1 hour ago (4 children)

    Do you not even understand the post? I am not saying every single entity that exists has to be completely uncensored. I am saying every mainstream site that exists is extremely censored and I am asking why are more people not fighting back against all this censorship and making it the popular opinion that all of this censorship should not be accepted. Even youtube realized that people were looking for alternatives to their site because there is so much censorship on it so they started letting some of the people they banned off of their site back onto it......but this is one tiny compromise they did.....nowhere even close to being enough as they still massively censor.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 hour ago (3 children)

    And we're trying to explain to you that it's not what censorship is. You're taking about private companies that operate as businesses, not free speech platforms. Those companies will do what brings them the most profits. If most of their users don't want to see "controversial" content they will remove it. If most users want to see it and will start moving to services where they can find it they will allow it. And yes, those companies will remove content that they think is bad for business. You're basically complaining that platforms created to push ads at people through influencers don't let you post "hardcore" and "edgy" stuff. Yeah, no shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] -2 points 47 minutes ago (2 children)

    You are too retarded to even conversate with. Censorship is censorship no matter what the excuse or reasoning is behind it and whether you think it is justified or not. Censorship is censorship.

    More people should be fighting against censorship....lots of people are sick of censorship but obviously not enough yet because mass censorship is still happening. Instead there is many retarded people like you making some of the dumbest arguments.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 3 hours ago

    I'm tired of it too. Censorship used to be highly frowned upon in internet culture.

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 4 hours ago (12 children)

    It may be hard to accept, but no private company or person are required to grant you a platform.

    Free speech means you may say what you want, it doesn't mean that other people have to accept hosting your conversation.

    In the past this was demonstrated with groups having to print and hand out their own flyers and palmphlets to get their word out, these days you expect that to effectively be free by using large social media sites and posting there instead, why should these companies be forced to host content going against their own interests? If that were the case, should socialist and communist website owners be forced to host MAGA content?

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] [S] 4 points 4 hours ago (11 children)

    There should be mainstream anti-censorhip websites and I am asking why people are not fighting for this more. Society is being severely harmed by all of the censorship. I also never said that sites who promote themselves as a specific private group need to let others join because they are establishing themselves as their own private group. Large sites like Youtube and reddit should be for everyone but they are not, not at all.....so people should be pissed off and demanding there be large anti-censorship sites and people can turn on different types of usage of the site as they choose....such as if they want "kid friendly only" there is an option for that....if somebody wants "no censorsip for anything" there is an option for that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 hours ago (10 children)

    The very moment you advertise you're anti-censorship, you get nazis.

    And no one wants to have their community filled with nazis, so those places either die, or they become explicitly nazi communities.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 hours ago (8 children)

    or they become explicitly nazi communities.

    For an example, see X

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] [S] -7 points 1 hour ago (7 children)

    its amazing how many people act like nazis while trying to bash nazis

    You dont even realize the hypocrisy? Mass censorship is fascism....which is what nazis did

    Imagine being scared of what people say on X 🤣 🤣 🤣

    people like you make the left look so weak and retarded........makes me wonder how many of you are actually just bots purposely trying to sabotage the left

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 minutes ago

    So you think calling people “retarded” is a totally fine way to express your frustration with having an inability to conduct yourself like an adult?

    I see why you keep getting banned.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 52 minutes ago (4 children)

    There it is. Defending the Nazis, while trying to spin it as if you aren't.

    It has nothing to do with being scared of what people say. It has everything to do with cutting out the shit parts of humanity, getting rid of a cancer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] -3 points 43 minutes ago (3 children)

    Are you fucking retarded? How is saying "you are acting like a nazi" a defense of the nazis? omfg

    nazis were jews by the way......they both carry the same fascist ideologies....and you clearly do as well......you are a fascist

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 6 hours ago (2 children)
  • [–] 9 points 6 hours ago (11 children)

    Corporations are worried about lawsuits

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • load more comments (11 replies)
    load more comments
    view more: next ›