• Libra00@lemmy.mlEnglish
    12·
    7 days ago

    What is with these vague, open-ended questions with no effort put in to try to provide any detail or literally anything to engage with?

    Now instead of answering your question I have to ask a bunch of questions myself:

    • How, exactly, are they wrong?
      • Are they merely incorrect?
      • Are they actively spreading disinformation?
    • Is their speech causing harm? If so what kind?
      • Is it direct and measurable like hate-speech or incitements to violence?
      • Or is it something vague and nebulous like ‘decadence’ or ‘societal harm’?
    • Who decided that they are wrong?
      • Experts?
      • Moderation teams?
      • Bureaucrats?
    • And most importantly, who is doing the censoring?
      • In what form?
      • With what authority?
      • In what medium?
      • For what purpose (actual, not stated)?

    Context matters, friend. Please provide some.

  • matte@lemm.ee
    131·
    7 days ago

    No. People often disagree on what is right and wrong. Then the stronger part will just censor the weaker part regardless of who is wrong.

    • FLOOF@sh.itjust.worksOP
      18·
      7 days ago

      Asuming a Lemmy where censorship is impossible, how would you handle illegal conversations?

        • FLOOF@sh.itjust.worksOP
          16·
          7 days ago

          Yeah, but that doesn’t answer the question.

          The best way to stop censorship is to make it impossible. So, if censorship is impossible, how would you handle illegal conversations?

          • JackGreenEarth@lemm.eeEnglish
            6·
            7 days ago

            If it’s impossible to censor people, you would hardly have a strong prosecution arguing you should have done something impossible.

            • FLOOF@sh.itjust.worksOP
              12·
              7 days ago

              That’s a good point.

              Prosecution might then assert that it was your responsibility to employ a system that DID allow for censorship. But I hate that one.

              Another option would be to refer the offender to the LEOs. Just shift responsibility. Heck, it could be said that you’re doing the LEOs a service. I like that one.

      • matte@lemm.ee
        4·
        7 days ago

        Well now we are - discussing a much more specific scenario and not just any scenario where someone is seen as wrong by someone else as in the original question.

        Anyway, the owner of any private publishing platform must be allowed to choose what they publish or rules for publishing. If it is “censorship” that publishers cannot be forced by any and all to publish illegal content then yeah, that form of “censorship” is entirely justifiable.

        • FLOOF@sh.itjust.worksOP
          21·
          7 days ago

          Yeah, but once the power is there it will be used for less legit reasons, like removing “saying nice stuff about the wrong politician”.

          • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world
            1·
            7 days ago

            I’d call that crossing the line.

            Censoring this may not be the same as censoring that. We might all be fine with censoring this, but censoring that is crossing the line. It doesn’t mean that the first scenario is wrong just because the second is.

    • FLOOF@sh.itjust.worksOP
      2·
      7 days ago

      In Reddit and Lemmy the names of the censors are hidden, and the debate is hidden too.

      I don’t know how they do it on X and Facebook.

      • Blisterexe@lemmy.zip
        1·
        7 days ago

        If a post or comment is removed on lemmy you can see the removed content and who removed it in the modlog

        • FLOOF@sh.itjust.worksOP
          1·
          7 days ago

          You can see the reason cited.

          In almost all cases you cannot see who did it.

          Any conversation about it is, as a rule, private

  • ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world
    3·
    7 days ago

    If the vast majority of people thought about anything that escaped the material world, maybe. As it is, anyone who understands how stupid, gullible, emotional, irrational, selfish and greedy human beings can be (especially those without any sort of moral code, like irreligious hedonists, for instance) and has the money to flood media with propaganda will inevitably make people believe what he or she wants.

    The comments here are very idealistic, but I live in reality. I know there’s one wise man out of a hundred, the others focus on practical matters and football. Unless you can just snap your fingers and make people, for instance, not be stupid and intellectually lazy enough to vote for a M/BILLIONAIRE “wise leader of the proletariat” (honestly, every time I type something Trump related I wonder how we’ve made it this far as a species… then I remember the atomic bomb is not even a century old 🤷), then no, you WILL have to censor some folks. Or, said passively, some folks need to be censored… Sadly, in many countries, the ones who do the mass immoral brainwashing also have the political power to silence and incarcerate those who oppose them.