The ACTUAL complaint is that people demand an AUDIENCE - they want to be able to broadcast their views to the largest number of people possible.
Nobody in the US is being "quashed" - you can run your own website, print your own newsletter, and nobody is going to kick down your door or send you to a re-education camp. Like I said, Nazis run their own websites, and the Taliban is on Twitter. Nobody here is being "silenced" because they can't grab the microphone - nobody's owed a microphone in the first place.
It's not even "relative privation" - nobody has a God given right to...Facebook. People serious about their causes run their own websites - they don't immediately start whinging because they've been booted from Reddit.
Your first comment:
> Whose voice is getting quashed in the US? Everyone has a Facebook, Twitter, email, phones, a magazine, protests, their own news channels, subReddits.
Your second comment:
> So "Silencing" is just getting kicked from Twitter and FB?
Sorry I was responding to the notion that people took being banned from FB/Reddit/whatever as being quashed. Those people are free to print their own newsletters or run their own websites.
It seems like two separate points, which is why I don't see it. Maybe I should have made it more cohesive.
Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient." Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies.
Amazon, Apple, Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc. are multibillion-dollar corporations that control a colossal share of online communications.
You approve of said quashing because it aligns with your political ideology.
> Those people are free to print their own newsletters or run their own websites.
And if the registrars and payment processors do the same, as has already happened? You'll move the goalposts again.