[naasking]

> 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.

[wtallis]

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".

[naasking]

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.

[JohnWhigham]

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.

[shkkmo]

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.

[throwaway3699]

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.

[namelessoracle]

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)

[kube-system]

Corporate powers in the US have a relatively quite strong ability to push back on government requests compared to most other jurisdictions.

[reedjosh]

But with moderators on a forum, it is private censorship all the way.

The issue is when at gunpoint people take my money from me, then use that money to fund more guns to point at the Twitters et al. of the world.

If I don't like moderation on a forum, I just leave the forum. I don't _have_ to give my support to it.

I can't just not support the US government.

[naasking]

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.

[nine_k]

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.

[clairity]

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.

[pjc50]

So .. are we back to demanding that twitter delete nothing, ever, no matter how pornographic, libellous, or threatening? Or even just spam?

[reedjosh]

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.

[j16sdiz]

Counter-argument:

Government is (in theory) elected by people, counter balanced by court.

Facebook is accountable to nobody, it don't even have any competitor in social network business.

[reedjosh]

> (in theory)

Yes, exactly.

> Facebook is accountable to nobody

Except when I hop off their platform.

> it don't even have any competitor in social network business.

True-ish I like https://peakd.com/ and https://flote.app/.

They're not as popular just yet, but they're excellent distributed alternatives.

Further, and most importantly, I can withdraw my support from Facebook. I cannot withdraw my support from the US government.

[nybble41]

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.

[username90]

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.

[root_axis]

> Moderators are literally censors, by definition

If that's the case then "censorship" is not inherently wrong, since moderation is often times a good thing.