zlacker

You're using a definition of "censorship" which is so broad as to be meaningless. By your definition, when I upvote a comment on Hacker News, that's "censorship" because it makes other comments in the thread a bit less prominent.

>Again, the author asks: "...is there a way to prevent any similar outbreak of aggressively performative moralism in the future?" But preventing somebody from expressing their moral values again is censorship.

Censorship isn't the only way to prevent the rise of bad ideas. For example: "the solution to bad speech is more speech"

>>0xDEAF+(OP)
I don't think that's true. When you and I up- or down-vote a comment, we are a part of expressing what will end up being the community's consensus. That's not censorship.

When Twitter's algorithm promotes certain topics and demotes others, that is a unilateral act made by a single, unaccountable entity that has full control over the platform. That is (or at least can be) censorship.

>>0xDEAF+(OP)
> "the solution to bad speech is more speech"

Yes, but when enough people who otherwise have little actual power get together to drown out "bad speech" with "more speech" it gets called 'cancel culture' and 'witch hunts' and is used as the primary example of 'censorship' on social media.

>>jwmcq+pp6
There's a difference between refuting someone's argument, and trying to get them fired because you don't like their conclusion.