zlacker

>>feross+(OP)
First: the dictionary defines censorship differently. AstralCodexTen's definition even seems to ignore the fact that e.g. Zuckerberg and Musk are very much "people in power". And it adds "customers" to the definition. In what perverse mindset is a speaker a seller?

Second: is this about freedom of speech? If it is, say so, because moderation nor censorship exclusively define that. Muddying the debate by giving some weird definition of two concepts isn't going to help that.

>>tgv+kv
I want to understand this but don't. Can you explain? Specifically I don't understand the bit about definitions and the bit about freedom of speech. Aren't all moderation and all censorship about freedom of speech, or the lack thereof?

>>neonat+fw
Everyone involved wants to characterise things their own way. For example this article says that it’s the “pro-censorship” side that conflates moderation and censorship. In my experience this also happens the other way around for similar but opposing reasons but this is ignored because the author has picked “a side”.

So we get lots of local definitions of censorship and moderation depending on the flavour of views the writer wants to present. They all tend to be reasonable in context but mean everyone is talking passed one another.

Essentially everyone is trying to argue over the ground of what moderation should be so it doesn’t get lumped into the “evil” censorship. But because this is largely just opinion everyone tries to make theirs look more official and factual.