zlacker

The question for the people who find this outrageous, why didn't you find the opposite situation just as outrageous? For years, liberals have been tacitly and often explicitly endorsing censorious behavior of Twitter, Meta and others as not only legitimate, but desirable. And this outcome is exactly why that was a dangerous position to embrace. Because, soon enough, someone you don't agree with will come into power.

We need to denounce censorship always, _especially_ when we disagree with those being censored.

>>ta8645+(OP)
You are painting it with really broad brush. Was Meta censoring #Republican before?

>>ta8645+(OP)
Let's not "both sides" this issue.

>>ta8645+(OP)
There's something to this argument, but a truly uncensored site 4chan style would never have been bigger than that site. The platforms have to censor CSAM; commercially, they end up having to censor slurs and abuse down to a level which the users and advertisers find acceptable.

(also there's a lot of false equivalence going on here - 'democrat' isn't a slur!)

>>ta8645+(OP)
Yes and this is the core problem.

I have no dog in this fight and I want to see all ideas surface. Then people will be able to judge for themselves. I do not want any kind of filtration by either communists or conservatives.

>>ta8645+(OP)
It never was that blatant; Liberals did not explicitly ran on "everything has to be free speech"; It is a difference if you censor hate speech or your political opposition

>>ta8645+(OP)
I’ve always been in favor of censoring based on facts. It’s just a shame that one side of the political divide is a lot more prone to… completely ignore the truth. That means it looks like you’re censoring their speech, when what you are really censoring is nonsense.

>>ta8645+(OP)
It's hilarious to me that so many people are just noticing the censorship of these sites. But hey, I guess that's a good thing right? Surely we all want freedom of speech now.

>>ta8645+(OP)
#republicans has never been censored. And tbh when right/far right content is being censored, it’s usually because they’re lying or prove to be terrible human beings. Not the same thing.

>>thiht+59
Yeah the conservative stuff that gets censored is crap like pizza gate and Wayfair selling children. Or sandy hook lies. The two aren't even remotely the same.

>>pjc50+S
The issue isn't necessarily that all censorship is "bad", it's that it is being applied asymmetrically to benefit a political party, blatantly.

>>Aeolun+f2
Who decides what a fact is and by what manner is information determined to be factual? In 2020, many major social media sites censored the New York Post's story regarding the Hunter Biden laptop scandal citing the report as political mis- or disinformation. The same laptop that many denied the very existence of became a lynchpin in securing Hunter Biden's guilt during his subsequent tax fraud case.

>>Dracop+Ys
I personally think it's a bad example: they censored this story while there were wild speculations. But at the end, it had negligible impact on the news. As soon as it appeared that the story was not a political mis/disinformation, it was not suppressed anymore.

If anything, it just shows that they are censoring based on facts: if there are established facts about Hunter Biden's laptop, then the information cannot be censored.

It is obvious to me that any brand new story is first "unestablished". They are indistinguishable from rumors. If you start choosing and picking "this story sounds nice to me, so let's not censor it even if it's not confirmed yet, this story is not confirmed yet either but let's censor it", then, it is arbitrary. The fact that a story starts as not confirmed and then turn out to be confirmed is not the proof something is wrong, on the opposite.

I think it's the problem of people who think "facts" are just "opinions" and that you can modify them as you want. They don't understand how "facts" work, and that it requires time for the confidence to grow. I also think that they sometimes get confused because they want very much to believe in some "opinions" or "fake news", but then people are saying, correctly, that this is not based on facts, so their only resort is to pretend this "opinion" or "fake news" is as factual as the other facts, but therefore it means that indeed, "facts" have no objectivity, everyone can just say "it's a fact" or "it's not a fact" based on what they want to hear.