You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Fighting spam, dealing with losers, and why no one gives a fuck
What's the problem with censorship? Life would be chaotic and stupid without censorship. Newspapers, magazines, webpages... all rely on censorship to have things make sense and be organized. Without it, newspapers would be cluttered with ads no one had to pay for, fishing magazines would be full of articles on knitting and raising chickens, and webpages would make no sense.
Where people get the idea that censorship is 'bad', I have no idea.
Well the question then is who is the one in charge of censorship? Isn't the idea to have a decentralized platform? If you are a fan of censorship then that is bringing in a "centralized" concept onto a de-centralized community platform. When you choose a censorship "authority" then they will be the ones controlling the content that is produced - which is against the idealism that the blockchain/decentralized network is all about is it not?
Why do you say that censorship is "centralized?" I'm sorry but that doesn't make sense. It is an activity that can be centralized or not; it is not inherently centralized.
Property owners are in charge of censorship of their respective property. If you own or have control over the page or property, then you have a right to censor it. Would you think it's 'bad' if you were forced to listen to every Jehovah's witness who rang your bell? Of course you would, because it's your home, the JW's are on your property, and you have the right to censor them.
Is your home 'centralized'? It's an irrelevant question, you are the property owner and you have the right to dictate the terms and conditions of the speech that goes on in your property, just like the owners of a fishing magazine can choose to allow knitting articles or not. That's how property ownership and censorship works.
Now, when the GOVERNMENT does it... that's a different story. We should have freedom FROM government limitations on our speech. The government has neither the right to force fishing magazines to include knitting articles, nor prevent them.
This is a confusion of Censorship vs quality control. Not putting knitting in a fishing magazine doesn't make knitting content completely unavailable, you just have to look at the knitting magazine. This is the marketing strategy of private enterprise.
Censorship is generally referring to government control over what people have the legal ability to view. If a private enterprise had a monopoly on knitting and then hid it, that could be seen as censorship I suppose.
The idea of censorship being bad plagues my every day life, given that I live in a country controlled by an authoritarian regime where you can go to prison simply for the intention of handing out stickers promoting women's rights on women's day.
The reason it's bad is because a small group of powerful people get to dictate what is right and wrong by promoting what pleases them and censoring what doesn't.
Anyway, as pointed out below, this is seemingly totally unrelated to this OP so better leave it at that!
There is a huge difference between censorship and governance. I loath the idea of someone telling me what I can and can't say, but I don't mind being held accountable for my actions!