[sinkelfink]

In a corporatist system of government, corporate censorship is state censorship. When there's no meaningful space between corporate power and government power, it doesn't make much difference whether the guy silencing your dissent is Mark Zuckerberg or William Barr. America most definitely has such a system.

And when independent candidates run for office and can't get their message out for being shadow banned, and the corporatist candidates are always the number one trending subject, you'll be there to finger wag for not bothering to set up their own world-class content distribution system first.

[root_axis]

I reject the idea that ownership of one of the most popular websites in the world is comparable in power to the threat of force that underpins the legal authority of the most powerful military in the world. I think that assertion is extreme and that you need to present some strong evidence to explain why popular websites are comparable in power to the justice department.

[colordrops]

Watch the BBC documentary Century of Self, about Edward Bernays, the founder of propaganda in the US, who learned about psychology from his uncle Sigmund Freud, and happened to be the instigator of modern marketing.

The study and control of group behavior is real. The network of educated and privileged elite is real. The power of the media run by these elite perhaps surpasses that of the justice department. The media can start wars.

[sinkelfink]

I didn't say they were comparable in power. That's an argument I didn't make. I said the result is the same.

[root_axis]

The result is not the same since government censorship is enforced through violence whereas corporate censorship is not enforced except within the confines of private property owned by the corporation.