Let’s call moderation what it actually is: censorship. And censorship is very much the path to tyranny, especially when done in collusion with governments.
2. No private tech company makes their content moderation "in collusion with governments". Not in the US at least.
https://mobile.twitter.com/DailyCaller/status/14157273544632...
Sorry, thought stuff like this was more well known. They’ve been colluding for quite a while but now it’s so brazenly open the White House press secretary is mentioning it in press conferences.
I agree it was out of bounds to make a comment like that from the WH, but lets be clear what it was and wasn't. It wasn't political, it was public health. And it wasn't an order, it was a request.
For all their belly-aching, there is literally no insane idea that you can't put out there with essentially zero repercussions.
Using a recent example: YouTube removes a video of medical Doctors promoting studies of a COVID treatment, one that could save lives. There’s science to back it up, however it’s not science promoted by the medical majority. Thus, it is censored. As a result, people don’t have access to a potentially life saving treatment and will die - this is censorship.
Are there worse examples of this concept happening over the past century? Yes, of course. But censorship leading to the deaths of millions is certainly bad.
No. Deplatforming is not the same as censorship. Don't equate them.
If Stanford University throws you off campus for holding up a "Stanford sucks" sign, this is deplatforming. Put it on your own lawn. Nobody has the obligation to host your content.
And no, it's not "effectively censorship" either. Censorship is actively seeking out and removing information from all platforms, everywhere, burning books, etc.
> But censorship leading to the deaths of millions is certainly bad.
What the actual F, no one is being censored leading to millions of deaths. If anything, deplatforming has saved millions of dying of COVID due to actual disinformation about fake cures (Hydroxychloroquine, injecting bleach) and pseudo-scientific FUD about vaccines.
Have a miracle cure for COVID? By all means, share. You'll be both wealthy and a hero. But nope, it's goddamn charlatans all day long with this shit.
https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/896/censorship
I think the need to redefine words like censorship is to make one seem good and necessary and one seem bad and deplorable. So “deplatforming” is now the good censorship and censorship remains the bad. Again see the link to clarify what exactly constitutes censorship. It doesn’t matter if you get it or not.
>Have a miracle cure for COVID?
Nope, just a suppressed treatment which could save lives. If the medical establishment actually cared about health it would be bending over backwards to study it instead of actively suppressing it. All I can do is post the science, here are 60 studies with more than half peer reviewed:
Calling medical doctors and researchers who risk their careers to publish studies backing up potential treatments are not charlatans, they’re heroes.
> Censorship occurs when individuals or groups try to prevent[1] others from saying, printing, or depicting words and images.
In the example I gave, Stanford is not showing up to your house to take signs off your lawn. So according to your very definition, they aren't "trying to prevent you from saying, printing, or depicting words and images," they are literally just kicking you off their lawn. You just repeatedly state these things are equivalent, when they are not, as I explained multiple times, and then you post a link to information that has not censored. Frankly I don't even want to argue about whether said link has been deplatformed or not, because it's not censored, and it's just me and you at this point, with zero progress.
[1] prevent, v.
1. keep (something) from happening or arising.
2. make (someone or something) unable to do something.