[twofornone]

>Having to hit 'see more replies' over and over.

I don't know if I'm just suffering from confirmation bias but it seems like this feature is used as a form of soft censorship, to discourage users from reading certain threads, as it appears to disproportionately pop up on "controversial" topics where right of center opinions are likely to be expressed.

[StanislavPetrov]

That's exactly the case, and its not at all limited to "right of center" positions. Accounts that are deemed undesirable by Twitter for whatever reason (usually involving posts that go counter to mainstream narratives) have all of their replies to every post listed after "see more replies" to reduce their visibility. And beneath "see more replies" you will often see another "show posts that may be offensive" that you have to click on to see even more replies from users Twitter finds less desirable still. Very frequently none of these posts will be offensive in any way. Those who have their posts under these extended tabs also don't give notifications to those they are replying to. It's censorship and information manipulation from top to bottom on Twitter.

[bombcar]

“See more board members”

“Show board members that may be offensive”

[wwweston]

> soft censorship

If it's soft, it's not censorship.

(On top of "if it's private, it's not censorship.")

[account42]

> Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies.

It IS censorship.

[wwweston]

LOL there's a fun one. What's next, writing a new arbitrary definition so that pinching people for not wearing green on St Patricks day is also censorship?

There are reasons the formal definition of censorship focuses on the actions of the state. One of them is that decisions about which speech to carry or amplify (and which to not) in the context of private means are themselves rights of speech.

If you disagree, I look forward to you sending me your address and letting me put signs of my choice up on your lawn. After all as a principled defender of speech, you wouldn't want to "suppress" what I have to say by not giving me the privilege of putting whatever words I choose there.

The funny thing, though, is that even by your altered definition, what the ancestor comments are talking about here still isn't censorship -- even assuming that there's some basis on which to assume systematic click-to-read-more-ificitaion of "right of center" ideas other than "some dude on the internet feels like it might be true", it's not even that Twitter is taking the words down and making the ideas unavailable, it's that they're somewhat less convenient to actually read and you have to put extra clicks in. This has all the "suppression" of a downvote, a mechanism I'd wager you've recently used.

But hey. If you value discourse so little as to equate both "have to make extra clicks to read someone's hot take on some sites/apps (freedom to choose other sites/apps still quite intact)" and "face imprisonment for expression of certain ideas" under the umbrella of censorship, the good news is that free speech rights let you do that.

[twofornone]

What are you on about? Certain ideas are made more difficult to express by a defacto authority (twitter). That's censorship, by definition.

>If you value discourse so little as to equate both

Censorship is a spectrum. Hence my original choice of the word "soft". Honestly it sounds like you're upset that someone noticed the suppression of right leaning opinions and are effectively deflecting by pretending that this isn't censorship, rather than acknowledging that it's happening. I don't think you even realize how disingenuous you're being if that's the case.

[wwweston]

> Certain ideas are made more difficult to express

Which ones? Describe a few. Try not to embarrass yourself by either picking something for which someone could actually find a tweet embodying the idea, or by demonstrating that what you're talking about is actually not, in fact, so much an idea.

> by a defacto authority

Twitter is not an authority. It's one of many fora.

> That's censorship, by definition.

Nope. By definition, censorship describes activity by the state. You might productively stretch the definition to any other entity that can use physical force in the same manor a censorous state does to selectively deprive people of liberty or health on the basis of speech opposed by said entity, but that's it.

> Hence my original choice of the word "soft".

ie, indicating that in actual fact, no speech has actually been suppressed at all.

> Honestly it sounds like you're upset that someone noticed the suppression of right leaning opinions

"Noticed," heh. Like, with some kind of evidence? Not anecdotal, analytical? Systemic suppression of right wing opinions?

Can you describe which right wing opinions are being suppressed -- apparently to the point where I haven't even heard these opinions?

> I don't think you even realize how disingenuous you're being if that's the case.

Speaking of disingenuous, like I said above, please send me your address. Or tell me why I shouldn't be able to compel you to carry posters/signs I'd like to see displayed on your property.

[twofornone]

Are you also one of those people who pretend that twitter, facebook, and google don't lean left in their moderation?

>Can you describe which right wing opinions are being suppressed -- apparently to the point where I haven't even heard these opinions?

Another in a series of strawmen. Again, I called it soft censorship. The fact that these opinions exist on these platforms does not imply that they are not made more difficult to communicate. But it sure does make it easy for people to weasily claim that no suppression is occurring.

This "show more replies" trick typically loads 3 comments at a time with a half second delay. Compare that to scrolling through hundreds of posts in an uncensored thread. Far fewer people are going to see those tweets. It's an obvious form of information manipulation - why else would it be done?

>Or tell me why I shouldn't be able to compel you to carry posters/signs I'd like to see displayed on your property.

My property is not a public square frequented by millions of people, including world leaders like Trump, whom I'll remind you was banned from twitter. I don't care about your weak rationalization for the ban, the point is that twitter does not need to be a nation state satisfy the definition of a censor. And if millions fewer eyes are landing on certain topics because of what is effectively a dark pattern, that's suppression, that's censorship, at the very least in spirit because certain information is being made more difficult to communicate. It's dishonest to pretend it isn't happening just because you agree with it, but I guess it helps with your cognitive dissonance over authoritarianism?

[jwarden]

That wasn't an arbitrary definition invented by GP to make a point. It was copied from Wikipedia.

Major dictionaries agree that censorship is not limited to government censorship. For example Webster defines “to censor” as “to examine in order to suppress (see SUPPRESS sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable”