[skrowl]

> 3. Turn on by default the tools to amplify factual voices over disinformation.

> 4. Work with independent researchers to facilitate in-depth studies of the platforms’ impact on people and our societies, and what we can do to improve things.

I'll help you. These two are the overt censorship.

When (often hyper-partisan like Snopes) fact checkers are the ones determining what you can see based on THEIR OWN interpretation of "hate speech" or "inciting violence" then that's censorship.

Alternatively, if you don't want to see something on Twitter / Parler / Gab / etc, just don't follow that person instead of calling for them to be censored.

[BHSPitMonkey]

> When (often hyper-partisan like Snopes) fact checkers are the ones determining what you can see based on THEIR OWN interpretation of "hate speech" or "inciting violence" then that's censorship.

This viewpoint is the culmination of years of hacking the Overton window. In any two-party environment where only _one_ party regularly _does_ proliferate bigotry and violent attitudes, any reasonable/neutral observer will appear to be a partisan for the opposition by default.

To assume this wouldn't be the case wrongly assumes that ideas should naturally fall along a Normal distribution, with the most morally-correct views centered precisely at x=0 (bipartisan) along the left/right axis.

[war1025]

> In any two-party environment where only _one_ party regularly _does_ proliferate bigotry and violent attitudes

Anyone who believes this is a true depiction of politics in the USA is willfully blind.

[BHSPitMonkey]

The probability of both factions promoting bigoted/violent attitudes at precisely the same rate is, well, impossible. Inevitably there will be a higher penetration of these ideas in one side or the other.

I'm not making the claim that the balance is immutable (it's always changing), but at this moment (and for the past decade, at least) there is one side where those ideas are _far_ more widely seen as acceptable or encouraged.