Tomas wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 16:44:
Cutter wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 16:21:
Tomas wrote on Jan 11, 2021, 15:00:
I understand what you're trying to say, but what you said is just wrong. It's 100% censorship, but done by entities other than government. Sure, it's legal, but it's not necessarily good for our republic.
Holy blue flaming Jesus on a pogo stick! How many times must it be said? It's not fucking censorship if a private business refuses to do business with you. Censorship is when a government, or prior to the modern world, religion, prevents you from speaking your mind upon pain of punishment for breaking that edict. Like Galileo would have been subject to an inquisition and torture as well as excommunication if he didn't recant heliocentrism - he did, under threat of torture. That's fucking censorship.
Private companies refusing to do business with a business who's business model is making money from violent, seditious psychos isn't censorship. That's just good business. None of them have shut Parler down or put it out of business. Parler has no right to private telecommunication lines. They can either run their own lines or use fucking carrier pigeons, no one is stopping them from doing that but they're are owed nothing when it comes to providing them a platform for what they want to do.
cen·sor·ship | \ ˈsen(t)-sər-ˌship
Definition of censorship
1a : the institution, system, or practice of censoring They oppose government censorship.
b : the actions or practices of censors especially : censorial control exercised repressively censorship that has … permitted a very limited dispersion of facts— Philip Wylie
2 : the office, power, or term of a Roman censor
3 : exclusion from consciousness by the psychic censor
It's literally the definition of censorship. It can also be "good business" (twitter lost 12% of its value over the weekend, mind you, so maybe it wasn't good business), but that doesn't mean it's not censorship. Censor isn't by itself a "bad" word, but it does mean the suppression or deletion of things considered objectionable. That is literally what was done. I don't see why the definition bothers you so much. Because Twitter and other companies censored someone doesn't mean they did anything wrong legally, but the legality of it doesn't make it not censorship.
Yep I have no problem calling it censorship, it just shows me not all censorship is bad, in fact we've known that our whole live, there has been plenty of accepted censorship our entire lives.This comment was edited on Jan 11, 2021, 23:12.