This, like many similar posts here, isn’t censorship. If you want to spread your idea (any idea at all) without hindrance, don’t do it on an advertisement platform.
Yes you do. This is plain as day censorship. You're not allowed to say certain things to your friends. If you're going to claim that that isn't censorship you are absolutely making the affirmative claim.
No, I don’t. I’m not making the claim. Look, still not making a claim! Still not making an argument. It’s up to “Facebook is censoring me” to make the case that warrants a defense. And I’m not Facebook so I don’t have do defend that. I can just… have this conversation without censorship. And if I get moderated here in a way I hope I won’t be but don’t expect… I can go to my blog or Twitter or whatever.
Now, you are claiming it’s not censorship and have provided no basis for that.
If FB is a censor, they’re extremely bad at it, and not authorized to be good at it.
So if Facebook isn't ubiquitous and omnipotent they cannot be considered a censor? You're deliberately applying an impossible requirement that you made up. By this requirement there is nobody that can censor, "China doesn't censor because you can still talk about what you want in America." It's absurd.
FB censors private messages between two people on Facebook Messenger. That's the claim. I'd say it's pretty well backed up with proof and facts in this thread.
If Facebook doesn’t want to send my message to you, that’s their choice. It’s not my right to send messages through Facebook and expect them to be delivered to you. Even if they contain horrific circles in a pattern that makes me squirm just describing them.
Am I misreading you?
If Facebook wants to provide private messaging that’s actually so private they can’t know its content, that’s another story. But if they’re hosting messaging they know about, they’re entirely within their rights to decide what content is appropriate on their own resources.
I don't think so. The 2 specific situations you list are different. For child porn, it's illegal. So if Facebook blocks it, it's the government choosing what to censor, not Facebook.
And I think it's possible to prevent "harassing people with pictures of patterns of holes they find unnerving" without Facebook censoring content. Facebook has a block functionality, and the receiver could block the sender. As for the sender making multiple accounts, if Facebook blocks that, that's not censorship of content, that's enforcing a 1 account policy.
Facebook is also allowed to censor child porn in private messages, and that they do so is a good thing, yet it's still censorship.
Is it possible to use the word censorship without it being a rallying cry (which then seems to somehow ~bend reality)?
Well it can't be really free or the service would not survive is it? It's like a club having free entrance / you pay otherwise.
And the fact that it's not unexpected doesn't make it not censorship, or not worth pointing out.
Tell that to the dozens of SMS I receive on a regular basis trying to scam me I guess?