You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Uncensored
You sound like manipulators that want to censor internet.
That's not an argument, that's a jab at my character.
They can always say, it is not censored, some sites are just less visible.
Yeah, seems the trouble is with definition, you believe censorship means curating content as crap, because "who decides what is crap content anyway":
In your opinion they are not censoring internet in that way?
Who's not censoring the internet, are they removing or blocking access to it, then it's censoring the internet, is someone blocking or removing access to content on the blockchain? No, end of discussion.
If you don't like some post, skip it, unfollow.
Or mute, or even flag.
To me making someone's content less visible only because you disagree with their opinion is form of censorship. To you it's not. Let say we agree to disagree. Now you can flag my comments :P
It's not opinion, its fact. The trouble, is that you don't want to agree on the definition of censorship and say that affecting people's content's visibility because of whatever reason is "a form of censorship".
Forms of censorship are soft, hard and self. I haven't heard of a form where curation is censorship.
If we cannot agree on definitions then there is no sense in having a conversation about that thing, you inherently don't want to agree with the thing's definition, and you think that changing the definition to fit your narrative is ok.
Calling flagging or curating censorship is not inaccurate, it's disingenuous, the fact that the act isn't defined by censorship, as nobody is suppressed, and nothing is removed, is dismissed as opinion.