zlacker

There is no objective, public, or shared "value" at play here.

The only "values" that matter are the personal whims of whoever happens to own Twitter, or Google or Facebook.

>>piaste+(OP)
You’re not making any sense, you’re just trying to sound contrarian.

>>piaste+(OP)
Just because this is a very difficult question doesn't mean we can throw our hands up and pretend it doesn't exist. Many things in life are very difficult and yet worth solving anyway.

>>howint+r94
I didn't say the concept cannot exist: I said it's not at play here.

What gets a website censored, in the modern corporation-dominated Internet, is going against the interests and preferences of Big Tech owners - and nothing else. Nobody with any power is bound to look out for the public interest, however defined; ICANN is perhaps the only exception that comes to mind.

We can waste our time and attention debating over which targets were more or less deserving of censorship, based on our personal ideas of public interest. But as long as Big Tech is allowed to exist in its current form, we're like powerless peasants arguing about the decisions of kings.

>>piaste+BP4
“And nothing else”

That’s not true and you know it. Don’t ignore facts man.