Hacker News Reader

Doesn't that depend on how orchestrated that decision-making is, and who's making the decisions (on behalf of others)?

When many instances co-ordinate to block an instance based on activism (Fediblock), they are censoring everyone on the targeted instance, many of whom may be innocent.

People deciding "whether they want to follow someone" is completely different from what's happening here.

View on HN

I think you have a very strange definition of censorship. Generally, people use "censorship" to refer to an organization with some kind of power relationship to a speaker preventing speech from being disseminated. Fediblock is not an organization, and the admins who use it do so specifically because they don't have power over the person speaking.

It's the equivalent of sending an e-mail to my neighborhood listserv saying "the guy who lives down the street is a bit of a dick, let's not invite him to the chili cook-off next time."

By their ability to ban -others- from seeing an individual, those admins DO have censorship power over that individual.

And censorship power is further concentrated by the existence of Fediblock

Reply on news.ycombinator.com