zlacker

>>vool+(OP)
- "It violates freedom of speech!"

- "This is a free market; if you do not like it use another platform!"

- "I thought $conglomerate" had our back! They had rainbows and all; is that all it took them to fold"?

- "No, this is not a systemic issue; conversation needs to be steered away from attacking the system and rather its a few bad apples! Go after them and stop asking for systemic changes!"

- "Any attempt at regulating companies in an assault on #freedom and must not be tolerated"

>>mjbale+G3
I am against almost all kinds of censorship, the only times I personally believe things should be censored if it's inciting violence/death threats to people. And even then I feel like censorship is probably the wrong way to do it.

And from that perspective, these quotes you're currently touting are ripped out of their context, making them sound asinine despite being mostly on point, fundamentally.

Twitter, Facebook, Google etc are private companies. They should be free to censor whatever they decide to censor.

I would personally hate it if they did, and it'd hope we'd get a competing platform that doesn't censor and that that'd become the standard, but it is what it is.

If a government makes the company censor something, then that is a violation of free speech (which I sadly don't have, as I'm not from the USA). And isn't that what happened in the context of Corona/antivax?

>>ffsm8+Z6
What is censorship for you personally? I don't have a clear definition in mind (because I think is hard), but something along the lines of "the ones with overwhelming power should not be able to impose what ideas are spread".

Why I think is hard it's because multiple rules can be made to make it impossible to spread ideas: talking loudly in the street => you disturb the neighbors; you send mails with pamphlets => it's spam; want to make an add on TV => extremely expensive. And so on.

>>vladms+ca
I completely agree that it's a very hard topic from the perspective of actually maintaining a healthy social media site.

Most of them have a vision for their platform, i.e. town hall for Twitter, family and friend conversations for Facebook etc.

To adhere to this image they filter out spam etc. now, filtering out obnoxious content just becomes one more rule and thus the slippery slope begins.

But to answer your question: for me, any kind of interference such as deleting/hiding content or algorithmically influence which content is shown is censorship on social media platforms, and the user should be responsible for applying such censorship.

I.e. provide a UI which let the user configure their own preferences. But actually nailing such a feature with a good UX ain't easy, and how to actually implement it isn't either, so that's just a pipedream, realistically speaking.