> It's literally censorship I tell you!
It literally is. Most people would say that is justifiable given that Facebook owns the platform, but that dosen't change the fact that they're censoring what users say.
It literally is. Most people would say that is justifiable given that Facebook owns the platform, but that dosen't change the fact that they're censoring what users say.
Those supporting censorship make basic references to it being okay because it is legal.
Those opposed to censorship make basic references to it being wrong because it is unethical.
Clearly, there is a tension between what is legal and what is ethical.
Trying to moderate "hate speech", which is highly subjective, is a losing proposition.
In this case, Facebook - presuming what they did was "follow the rules" - is following censorship rules.
So perhaps the thread should be about the US government forcing companies to censor free speech for them.
It's fairly easy to get people onboard with the idea of moderation, once you insist that that's censorship you now have a population that's "ok with censorship" which is exactly what the fascists trying to make the equality want.
Merely, this specific act of moderation was an implementation of censorship.
Moderation and censorship are two different things that are not mutually exclusive.
You are presenting a false dichotomy.
"First the came for the ..."