See, your post is exactly what OP is talking about.
> Seriously!? But don't you realize that ${political.outrage.tweet.792305}??
It's expecting that behavior as the default which I take issue with, and denying the specter of rising fascism. (Because yeesh, why care about a year of genocide funded with our own taxes and enabled by our leaders?)
Some people actually do care about what's happening in the world; say, for example, the UN calling out a genocide backed by Western powers with our tax money. I believe they ought to be able to discuss these things without being flagged/shadowbanned/banned etc, especially on decentralized fora.
The major platforms already suppress such discussion. If you want to avoid making custom filters, just stay on those.
But gp (and yourself, presumably) not liking it doesn’t make it untrue, and certainly doesn’t mean the argument should be censored.
I guess technically Thiel is into Trump so maybe influencing Graham, but I never got the impression he dictated moderation decisions here. The more likely explanation, IMO, is that they’re just trying not to rock the boat, and “ban all serious political discussion on sight” is still their way to do that
It does NOT mean that others are COMPELLED to carry or distribute your message.
I recognize this can create uncomfortable situations, such as when a corporation that controls the stack of modern communication decides your speech is forbidden. That is, I think, a very related but separate issue. At the end of the day, you can stand on a box on the corner of your street and yell.
Especially when the political viewpoint in question is "Guys maybe we should worry about this looming fascism, evidenced by just about every possible indicator".
> censorship, the changing or the suppression or prohibition of speech or writing that is deemed subversive of the common good.
(Brittanica) - note 'changing' and 'suppression', rather than 'elimination'.
> Any regime or context in which the content of what is publically expressed, exhibited, published, broadcast, or otherwise distributed is regulated or in which the circulation of information is controlled.
> The practice and process of suppression or any particular instance of this. This may involve the partial or total suppression of any text or the entire output of an individual or organization on a limited or permanent basis.
(Oxford) - note 'regulated' and 'controlled', and explicitly, 'partial or total', rather than elimination.
> Amplifying views you like
Ie, literally de facto censorship.
When every social network is owned by the yacht class, and they are "amplifying" everything except political views calling for a more equitable and less genocidal system, that's censorship. Definitevily.
... Idk man, seems kinda fascist tbh.
OP made blocking rules as a personal preference - 100% fine.
Expecting censorship of political topics like rising fascism as the default - dangerously naive.
* The genocide in Israel isn't just an American project. Many countries leaders and media are complicit.
* Fascism isn't just rising in America.
* American politics affects the entire world. Simply look at a map of US military bases, or the threats we level against courts and regulators and leaders.
* Most platforms heavily suppress huge swathes of political content which falls outside the current Overton window (which has, indeed, been moving toward fascism for decades across the West).
Second, Mastodon is a decentralized forum. Complaining about political content on it, in a time of historic inequality, and then asking if all platforms need to be a "frontline of American politics" is really quite silly. It would be like complaining about all the business news on HN, then asking if every platform needs to be so relentlessly capitalistic.