zlacker

>>feross+(OP)
In social media, moderation of this style is practically equivalent to censorship because the visibility of the content is determined algorithmically: if the algo decides to "hide" your posts they become invisible (or much less visible) in other people's feeds. The fact that they're still visible for the die hard followers that refresh your page to see them is mostly irrelevant.

Your speech is effectively censored by the moderators because you cannot use that tool as intended, to reach audiences with the same ease other types of speech can.

It's like requiring a newspaper to "moderate" all articles by a certain author publishing them in the form of a short notice "If you are interested in the writings of Mr. Smith, who may or may have not published an article for today's issue, then please send a self-addressed enevelope to PO-Box ....".

>>manhol+Iy
>Your speech is effectively censored by the moderators because you cannot use that tool as intended, to reach audiences with the same ease other types of speech can.

But you can still stand outside your home and say whatever you want. You can print up and distribute flyers. You can set up your own web site too.

While I despise the business models and actions of pretty much all the "social" media actors, they are not required to provide you with a platform.

You can still say whatever it is you want to say, but those private actors have no responsibility to act as a megaphone for you.

>>nobody+cK
True in the absolute, but irrelevant. Censorship is always contextual, in practice censors fall short of the 1984ish "ideal" of total domination of the individual.

This dichotomy (free speech for all, but no one is required to offer a platform) works in liberal societies because you have a diversity of publishers.