zlacker

You can list 1000 reasons why moderation is different from censorship, but people in power can achieve the same censorship goal with tools provided by moderation.

e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32416424

So as a result they are practically the same thing.

>>est+(OP)
That's why the distinction made by the dictionary definition AFAIK is not made by form, but by actor. Censorship is done by a public authority, moderation is done by a private entity.

>>est+(OP)
What you're talking about is clearly censorship and not moderation by the OP's definition - "blocking speech that both sides want to hear".

Your link is actually great for his point: people in power (OnlyFans and Meta) blocked something that both sides (their competitors, and their competitors' users) wanted to hear - otherwise they wouldn't have needed to block it. (For the sake of argument, I'm assuming that the lawsuit's claims are true - I have no idea if they are but it's not pertinent to this point.)

>>groest+d
In this day and age when not only companies, but individuals command the wealth of small nations, is that truly a clear distinction?

>>dumpst+J
I've said elsewhere that Twitter might be public infrastructure. The distinction is still clear though.

(Me personally, I think it should not be allowed for individuals to own the wealth of small nations, much less command it. But that's a different topic)

>>est+(OP)
OK - it is not a sharp distinction - but can't we work with shades of gray? It becomes a no true Scotsman otherwise.

>>groest+d
Wait, really? Then why do we say 'government censorship' ... that would be redundant.

I don't think that definition works.

>>whidde+KH
Well, I didn't say 'government censorship', and I think it's redundant. Which might be just me, but you can Google "difference moderation censorship" and see that this is a generally accepted view.

>>dumpst+J
So...don't allow individual to command the wealth of small nations and all these problems go away.