[Amezarak]

You cannot have censorship of “disinformation” and democracy. They are necessary antagonisms. If you want a free society you just have to accept that sometimes people will hear and believe untruths and do your best to argue your side. This has been the case from the beginning - even in America, we have ample examples from the post-revolutionary era of people complaining that “designing men” were misleading the public to rile them up against their representatives. And of course, the Adams administration used the foreign policy position of the state to throw their critics in prison as being seditious. People like to say that well, social media has changed everything. In fact, we’ve simply returned to a situation more like what we had prior to centralized mass media, where rumors and panics and “disinformation” originating in the common people (and often blamed on foreigners) frequently caused all kinds of dramatic events and political upsets.

The very idea of an “information war” that can be won only by silencing your adversary is an attack on democracy.

> videos of $ALLY/SELF committing them that come from reputable source or that can be verified should not be censored

There is no world where the authority delegated to protect us from propaganda isn’t going to censor these. It’s well and good to posit the idea that untruth shouldn’t be allowed but by giving someone the authority to arbitrate what is reputable and true you’ve already ceded the entire idea of self-governance.

[Gupie]

That sounds very dogmatic to me, "you cannot", "they are necessary", "you just have to", "an attack on democracy". You are right to be worried about attacks on democracy, with the refusal to Trump at al to accept the result of last year's election. But that is not down to censorship.

[Amezarak]

> That sounds very dogmatic to me, "you cannot", "they are necessary", "you just have to", "an attack on democracy".

There is no dogmatism necessary, it's a logical proposition. If people are not allowed to decide for themselves what is true, they are not self-governed. Unfortunately, we can see from the ample historical record that people will frequently believe things that aren't true, or lack context, and will decide on courses of actions that appear to be foolish, reckless, or wicked. But the reason we live in a democratic society is because we decided this was better than oligarchs or monarchs choosing for us, even if a given set of oligarchs or monarchs may have been better and wiser. And we also have an ample historical record showing us that governments and other power-systems, given the power, will censor true things as well as false ones for various reasons, usually self-interested, but not always in a direct sense.

You can argue that some kind of managerial technocracy with arbiters of truth is a better system of government, but it isn't really a democratic one, in the usual sense. Perhaps in the "you are allowed to choose from these pre-approved opinions, held by the earl and the duke, respectively" sense.

> with the refusal to Trump at al to accept the result of last year's election. But that is not down to censorship.

I am personally more worried about CIA directors torturing people, murdering people, spying on the Senate, and leading the attacks on democratically elected officials as a threat to democracy than this, which is not a new problem at all in America. But even in the latter case, censorship certainly played a major role: the Biden laptop story was censored because intelligence agencies said it was the sort of thing the Russians might do (not that they had any evidence they did it - but because they would have done it if they could), and this certainly aggravated the sense of aggrievement and persecution held by these people, even though I personally doubt the "revelation" that Hunter got jobs because of who his dad was and had to pay his dad some of the money would have swayed anyone, considering how common it is in DC.