[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?

[wwweston]

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

I'm one of those people who requires evidence for the assertion that there's some systemic left lean on any of those platforms.

I'm also able to observe plenty of speech by people who identify themselves as right-wing/conservative being propagated via Facebook, Twitter, and Google.

I'm also aware that some people like to make charges of oppression so they can "work the refs" in order to gain privileges.

> Another in a series of strawmen.

Strawman has a definition too. Just because there's something you don't like about it doesn't make it a strawman.

Censorship requires an idea actually being suppressed (and by the state). If that hasn't happened, what is happening is not censorship.

> Again, I called it soft censorship.

And again, I pointed out that this is a contradiction in terms -- the very phrasing admits that what is happening is not censorship, however much you'd like it conceptually associated without meeting the definition.

> The fact that these opinions exist on these platforms does not imply that they are not made more difficult to communicate.

Even if you're backing away from the idea that there are some viewpoints that are censored outright, the same question applies: do you have any evidence that "show more replies" systemically applies to any particular political pole? Because I can guarantee you I see "show more replies" across a wide range of topics, many of which are more or less apolitical (hey, here's one I just saw this happening, a thread about someone's divorce: https://twitter.com/moonbm_dmr/status/1512515632864145431 , oh hey, here's another one, gender reveal party: https://twitter.com/AriWRees/status/1512581194491183104 ), some of which are progressive as hell (here's one basically affirming a progressive vision of Christianity https://twitter.com/Brcremer/status/1512775185572671492 but it's cut short by "show more replies" insert is-this-censorship-butterfly-jpeg here).

But even if it were, the hypothetical you're talking about is no longer about censorship, but what is privileged. And Twitter's own free speech rights actually protect their decisions about what is privileged, actually let them choosing the structure of what they amplify and what they do not. They have the same rights that a political party or Fox News or any other private organization (explicitly partisan or not) have to determine how speech unfolds within their bounds.

That even extends to what they decide not to carry at all.

The authoritarians are those who suggest that a privately created and sustained platform be compelled to carry arbitrary speech. Compelled not to exercise their own preferences and opinions in moderating.

Compelled speech is not free speech. And compelled speech is therefore not anti-censorship.

> why else would it be done?

Off the top of my head because they think it helps engagement metrics with the platform as a whole, likely under some model with a law of diminishing returns for any given thread. Seems pretty obvious to me. But maybe that's only the kind of actual underlying technical dynamic that people who are thinking beyond partisanship and in principled analytical terms about this topic can see.

> my property is not a public square frequented by millions of people

Disneyland is frequented by millions too. It remains private.

Twitter is a forum, but it is not public. Those who run it can choose to run it in accordance with their own principles, within the bounds of law. Their property is as private as Disneyland's -- or as yours, choices about the scale of visitors they invite notwithstanding. They have as much right to set the terms within their places as you do with yours.

> world leaders like Trump, whom I'll remind you was banned from twitter.

Twitter has no general legal obligation to carry any individual's speech, so they could do this for any reason or no reason. As it happens, they chose to do it for specific reasons which were violations of their clearly articulate terms, and this after years of indulgence toward Trump crossing the line repeatedly.

> I don't care about your weak rationalization

Calling a rationale weak doesn't make it so. In fact, choosing to narrate your way to affirmation of your position is often a sign that you don't think you have a better tack.

> it's dishonest to pretend it isn't happening just because you agree with it,

I don't think it's happening because I haven't seen anyone present evidence that supports this position and because it is quite clear that conservative ideas are loudly and commonly represented. As for who's "pretending", observant readers will note that you keep avoiding/ignoring this point.

Some observant readers might even assume that the reason you imagine others are taking a position on twitter's policies "just because you agree with it" is because that's how the human being you know best from the inside out works, but that would surely be speculation.

> I guess it helps with your cognitive dissonance over authoritarianism?

As loose with the definition of authoritarianism as you've been with the definition of censorship, are you?

I believe that every person or institution has the legal and moral right to make decisions about which speech is valuable -- that this is itself a free speech right. I may be obligated to let others use their means to make speech, but I am in no way obligated to carry anyone's speech that I disagree with, and I am in no way forbidden from assigning different value to different speech when it comes to how I administer my means.

You appear to believe that under some circumstances, some private parties (conservatives?) should be able to forbid other private parties (Twitter?) from making systemic or individual judgments about how they carry, value, or present speech in fora that belongs to them. That sure seems more authoritarian to me.

[twofornone]

>I'm also able to observe plenty of speech by people who identify themselves as right-wing/conservative being propagated via Facebook, Twitter, and Google.

As I've repeatedly pointed out, that these opinions still exist on the platform does not imply that they are not being suppressed. Yes, this is a strawman, because I'm not arguing that they are completely banned, as you're implying.

>I believe that every person or institution has the legal and moral right to make decisions about which speech is valuable

It's really odd how you devote about half of your ramblings to claiming that censorship/suppression are not occurring on twitter, and the other half defending their freedom to do so (which I'm not even arguing against, I just think it's slimy and potentially dangerous to society). While also disingeniously rationalizing the behavior by insisting that it isn't censorship if twitter is not a state.

You do not argue honestly.

[wwweston]

> As I've repeatedly pointed out

Oh, anyone who's followed our exchange can tell you're into repetition. Almost like a religious mantra.

And while there's a lot I could also repeat here, the following is the only novel ground we haven't covered yet and it's ... interesting:

> It's really odd how you devote about half of your ramblings to claiming that censorship/suppression are not occurring on twitter, and the other half defending their freedom to do so

You really think that's odd? I mean, that's not just "LOL", that's "chef's kiss LOL."

In either exploration or argument, it's entirely standard to both refute an assertion, and then for thoroughness sake to also look down the road and say "let's say we accept your assertion, here's why it doesn't mean what you think it means."

This is not only honest, it's thorough. And if you think it's strange, then it sure seems like you're... pretty new to exploratory or argumentative discussion.