> But here it's not what they choose to remove, not "moderation.. It's what those in power press them to remove, aka "censorship"
Moderators are literally censors, by definition. Look up the definition of "censor" if you don't believe me.
People need to stop playing word games to avoid the label of "censorship". Just accept that you're ok with some types of censorship and try to justify the types you support rigourously. That's the only way to avoid a slippery slope. Trying to tap dance around calling it censorship serves no one.
There's a meaningful and important distinction between restrictions on speech that are enacted and enforced by private companies, and restrictions that are enacted by the government with enforcement outsourced to companies (that may be reluctant to comply).
Using the word "censorship" for the latter but a milder word like "moderation" for the former seems like a perfectly reasonable way to convey this distinction in this context, even if a dictionary might provide a broader definition of "censor".
I don't think the distinction is as clear as you imply. Facebook is a multinational corporation that is arguably more powerful than many governments, and it can and has swayed elections.
At what point are Facebook's "moderation" decisions "censorship"? You're effectively saying that it's only when moderation is driven by some kind of government policy, which completely erases the factors that actually matter in evaluating the danger of any given suppression decision, ie. understanding of harm, considerations of power and oppression, etc.
It's moderation when it's content I don't like. It's censorship when it's content I do like. Period. That's how it's treated in the public discourse. Accept this, and let's build upon it.
While there are people who misuse the s to score political points, that doesn't erase the real differences in sense and meaning behind them.
Strictly speaking, moderation is a subset of censorship. The key aspect of moderation is that it is generally done by community members (usually volunteers) and done to enforce standards agreed with by the community. Other forms of censorship generally come from outside a community to enforce some rules the community does not support.
Thus perspective and community identity are integral to the distinction but there is still a basis by which you can objectively view the powwr dynamics and distinguish moderation from other forms of censorship (such as corporate censorship or government censorship.)
I do think the term "moderation" is a misnomer when applied to Facebook and Google as their moderators are generally not part of the communities they censor.
Moderation a conversation implies somebody is getting threatened with their comment being deleted or account suspended. That is censorship. Moderation is just the brand friendly term for it.
When corporate and government power are tied at the hip the distinction is meaningless. Its been meaningless for a long time. Look up Banana Republic as a term.
Think of it this way. If AliBaba does something you know China the government is connected. Same goes true for Zoom.
America is no better. (as the Banana Republic example shows) The head of Apple can call the Speaker of the House directly on the phone whenever he wants and that person will answer. I can guarantee you that the same is true of Google. I am also sure if Jack Dorsey wanted to talk to someone with decision making power in the Whitehouse it could happen within the day. (probably slower than Google or Apple though)
This distinction is meaningful, but not as persuasive as you might think. If you're, say, a journalist with unpopular opinions that are typically censored on social media, you arguably do need to support those venues. Consider the fact that corporate power now extends beyond national borders, so in some very real senses, some corporations are more powerful than many governments.
I'm trying to make a distinction between removing literal hooliganism and obstruction, like repetitive posts consisting of "aaaaa", goatse links, etc (the "moderation"), and removing meaningful but politically unpalatable content (the "censorship").
BTW I like how HN allows for moderation that makes certain low-quality comments invisible, but there is a mode when you still can inspect them if you want to. It's like the "spam" folder that allows you to have a clean inbox, but also allows you not to miss something that was deemed spam by mistake.
it’s not simply wordplay when they defined their understanding of these terms explicitly.
with that said, neither moderation nor censorship should be tolerated for (political) speech by any (large) organization or bureaucracy, because they are using outsized power to influence opinions unduly, and thereby stripping us of our independence (literally coercing conformation). we can otherwise quibble about drawing a small line at the very far end of the slope where child porn lives.
I don't care what Twitter does. I just don't want the government mandating what it does. If a private company wants to censor, then sure.
But as soon as the government requests takedowns and shadowbans, that's majorly crossing the line into infringement of free speech.
The whole reason we constitutionally limit the governmental repression of free speech is because we're all made to support it. If I could chose to pay my taxes to an alternative, then fine, but we're made to pay taxes to a government that now can take down speech critical of it.
Even if that were "Government is (in practice) elected by people, counter balanced by court", it wouldn't be enough. The people electing the government do not have the right to use force to coerce other people (the owners & operators of Facebook in this case) into censoring content. A government or other representative elected by the people has no rights beyond those possessed by the people who voted for it—one cannot delegate rights one does not possess. And the courts are themselves part of the government. It's good to have some form of internal controls (self-regulation) to keep the other branches of government in check, but one arm of the government cannot be the sole and final arbiter of whether another arm of the same government is acting justly.
Facebook is accountable to its users. It may not have much serious competition now, but there are myriad potential alternatives which could fulfill the same function, just as Facebook replaced its predecessors (most notably MySpace). Network effects are strong while they last, but notoriously fickle.
Twitter has many friends in the government and vice versa. So politicians enacts policies keeping twitter in power, and twitter enacts censorship keeping those politicians in power. This is completely fine and not "real censorship" since there was no formal agreement to do this, just some friends helping each other.
Either we can keep that corrupt view, or we can agree that huge corporations are inseparable from governments and reign in their freedoms in a similar manner.
Excellent point, but it's important to note that currently the systems private companies use are little better than censorship. We need a non-affiliated govt agency to handle censorship/moderation requests.
As someone who leans right wing.... I have 0 trust in these types of institutions. They overwhelmingly have views that are aligned directly with the far left and they seem to exercise their authority when given it to further their own political objectives. Take the SPLC which is used by some tech platforms to decide who to censor. They wield their power to label people as white supremacist to get them banned not because they are in any reasonable persons view based on evidence have said or done things that are clearly racist.... but its just the labeling of an enemy to fit narrative. We don't need censorship with extra steps... we need free speech.
Years back a Colorado bakery refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding, the resulting lawsuit ended up going all the way up to the supreme court. The law firm that represented the baker is now officially labeled as a anti gay hate group by the splc.
I don't have to be there, and my dollars don't go to these corps. I don't understand your point.
I'm not on either of those platforms, so they're not shipping me ads. I do what I can to be private, so that their data mining doesn't get me.
I have that choice. Unfortunately if I don't agree with what my government is doing, they'll still take my tax dollars and fight forever wars with them.
All we need is rules about what content can be removed for what reasons, and Twitter can just follow those rules itself, with the potential for audits. That's how we handle every regulatory requirement for companies. Even taxes basically work that way.
Censorship is the moderation of content that may be disturbing or cause painful thoughts or feelings. So a person leaking state secrets on Twitter, and the government asking Twitter to take the tweet down, is not censorship: it's protecting national security, or law enforcement. They're drastically different things being taken down for very different reasons.
You don't need an independent body to handle either type of request because we already have mechanisms for a company to handle both. What people are getting worked up over now is the potential for governments to abuse their legal right to remove illegal content, in order to censor. Since it's the govt doing it, the govt is not going to create an agency just to wave a big flag when it is doing something bad. That would be like creating a "National Agency Of We Don't Trust The Government".
Moderators are literally censors, by definition. Look up the definition of "censor" if you don't believe me.
People need to stop playing word games to avoid the label of "censorship". Just accept that you're ok with some types of censorship and try to justify the types you support rigourously. That's the only way to avoid a slippery slope. Trying to tap dance around calling it censorship serves no one.