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.
Mods can't be trusted to not have their bias steer the conversation.
People certainly can be trusted to have public discussions about topics the government would rather you not. To that end, some of them can make good faith efforts to do that acting as discussion moderators. We do not need to trust the moderators; if one behaves improperly they can be replaced or people can move to a better discussion. Even if that issue were intractable, people must be free to have forums that remain on-topic and free from malicious attack. Overzealous moderation on some forums is better than every forum being a graffiti wall.
...you think more accounts should be banned around here. Literally advocating for more censorship.
I do not see banning fake accounts as a form of censorship at all. People do not come to forums seeking what malicious people want to do.
Free speech is free speech. Not free speech with an asterisk. That includes trolls, shills, spammers and glowies.
You absolutely cannot be serious.
Trolls: If you are here to make fun of people, waste their time with meaningless word salads, post illegal material, or otherwise disrupt communication, you can get the hell out of any discussion I moderate.
Shills: If you are here to serve an external agenda, make the community look deplorable, give us "daily reminders" (not to vote, or whatever you're promoting), or earn money through your participation, you can also get the hell out.
Spammers: If you are here to pretend to engage the discussion topic while actually just advertising or you intend to say the same thing every few hours just so people can see it, get the hell out.
Glowies: While I think using that term is a red flag for being a shill account, if you are a government agent tasked with creating the illusion that discussion forums themselves are the problem and therefore the government needs to actually censor them all to solve it, you--yes, you-- can get the hell right out.
What is happening is the most dire threat to global information access I have ever seen or can even imagine. I am right about this one.
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.
People certainly can be trusted to have public discussions about topics the government would rather you not. To that end, some of them can make good faith efforts to do that acting as discussion moderators. We do not need to trust the moderators; if one behaves improperly they can be replaced or people can move to a better discussion. Even if that issue were intractable, people must be free to have forums that remain on-topic and free from malicious attack. Overzealous moderation on some forums is better than every forum being a graffiti wall.
I do not see banning fake accounts as a form of censorship at all. People do not come to forums seeking what malicious people want to do.
You absolutely cannot be serious.
Trolls: If you are here to make fun of people, waste their time with meaningless word salads, post illegal material, or otherwise disrupt communication, you can get the hell out of any discussion I moderate.
Shills: If you are here to serve an external agenda, make the community look deplorable, give us "daily reminders" (not to vote, or whatever you're promoting), or earn money through your participation, you can also get the hell out.
Spammers: If you are here to pretend to engage the discussion topic while actually just advertising or you intend to say the same thing every few hours just so people can see it, get the hell out.
Glowies: While I think using that term is a red flag for being a shill account, if you are a government agent tasked with creating the illusion that discussion forums themselves are the problem and therefore the government needs to actually censor them all to solve it, you--yes, you-- can get the hell right out.
What is happening is the most dire threat to global information access I have ever seen or can even imagine. I am right about this one.
Obama Warns That “People Are Dying Because Of Misinformation,” But Is His Warning Coming Too Late? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Fr89LXNzRo
Challenges to Democracy in the Digital Information Realm -- Stanford Cyber Policy Center https://cyber.fsi.stanford.edu/events/challenges-democracy-digital-information-realm