zlacker

I found this unconvincing.

The article's distinction between moderation and censorship feels like the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist - i.e. if you are sympathetic to their cause you use the more positive euphamism, but there really isn't an objective difference.

At most the distinction the article seems to be making is that moderation should be optional and censorship forced - you should be able to choose to see the dead comments if you want (nevermind that that is hardly the norm for "moderation" on the internet).

All i can think, is under that distinction, the mccarthyism in the US would probably be considered "moderation" not "censorship" despite probably being one of the most egregious examples of censorship in usa in the modern era. So i have trouble accepting that definition.

>>bawolf+(OP)
His definition is tightly tied to digital messaging, where it's technologically trivial and cheap to undo the message-hiding, and scales badly if at all beyond that domain.

>>bawolf+(OP)
> At most the distinction the article seems to be making is that moderation should be optional and censorship forced

I don't think this is the correct distinction he is making. He defines moderation as a receiver being able to choose whether they want to see certain content. He defines censorship as a third-party deciding if a receiver can see certain content whether or not they want it. McCarthyism would be censorship under that definition.

>>bryan0+RB1
The aspect i was thinking of was how many artists were blacklisted, but still able to publish in less reputable places like playboy. You could say they were just blocked from high society but anyone interested was still able to read them.