I am not doing that. Do I really need to go into ELI5 mode with you?
Many countries like China (authoritarian regimes) censor the Internet. They block people from accessing the information they want to get. They take steps to ensure their people can only see what the government wants them to see. We can all agree that this is censorship.
Many countries like the United States are increasingly using social media, search engines and online publishing platforms to block people from accessing the information they want to get. They take steps to ensure their people have a harder time accessing that information while artificially promoting approved content. I think most reasonable people would call that censorship.
A moderated discussion is one where certain people can remove content that was posted to disrupt the communication process or further some external agenda. The moderators take steps to ensure the participants can have a discussion about a particular topic. Rather than restricting access to information, the mods help people get the information they want. It is unreasonable to call that censorship.
Mods can't be trusted to not have their bias steer the conversation. That goes for here just as much as it goes for reddit.
I said you're advocating for more censorship.
You replied:
I am not doing that
Immediately before that comment you said:
They don't ban nearly enough accounts here.
Nearly enough. Meaning you think more accounts should be banned around here. Literally advocating for more censorship.
You're dishonest. I'm not even saying censorship is bad, I'm saying you're completely full of shit or lying to yourself.
Free speech is free speech. Not free speech with an asterisk.
That includes trolls, shills, spammers and glowies.
You want to have a discussion about free speech being good or bad, fine. But don't pretend to be for it while asking for even more people to be banned.
If I take a gander at your post history, are you going to be crying about censorship or free speech issues?
Those issues are very important. What about my post history undermines that?
You're advocating for more censorship.
I am not doing that. Do I really need to go into ELI5 mode with you?
Many countries like China (authoritarian regimes) censor the Internet. They block people from accessing the information they want to get. They take steps to ensure their people can only see what the government wants them to see. We can all agree that this is censorship.
Many countries like the United States are increasingly using social media, search engines and online publishing platforms to block people from accessing the information they want to get. They take steps to ensure their people have a harder time accessing that information while artificially promoting approved content. I think most reasonable people would call that censorship.
A moderated discussion is one where certain people can remove content that was posted to disrupt the communication process or further some external agenda. The moderators take steps to ensure the participants can have a discussion about a particular topic. Rather than restricting access to information, the mods help people get the information they want. It is unreasonable to call that censorship.
Mods can't be trusted to not have their bias steer the conversation. That goes for here just as much as it goes for reddit.
I said you're advocating for more censorship.
You replied:
Immediately before that comment you said:
Nearly enough. Meaning you think more accounts should be banned around here. Literally advocating for more censorship.
You're dishonest. I'm not even saying censorship is bad, I'm saying you're completely full of shit or lying to yourself.
Free speech is free speech. Not free speech with an asterisk.
That includes trolls, shills, spammers and glowies.
You want to have a discussion about free speech being good or bad, fine. But don't pretend to be for it while asking for even more people to be banned.