[4512124672456]

People (or NPCs/bots, like you call them) downvote you because not only is it a bad take and does have questionable grammar, it's also full of misinformation.

Let's take your first point for example. If I go on Fox News right now and search for articles about the 2020 election being stolen, I get plenty of articles and opinions talking about it. How exactly was it censored, and how is it comparable to censorship in China?

Besides, censorship is not inherently bad, and most stable democracies with a functioning legal system will have some form of censorship, to protect minors, for example.

[lettergram]

“misinformation” is a term used to discredit and dismiss. It’s often used by the government in an attempt to censor people on social media

heres an example where the White House admits it: https://nypost.com/2021/07/15/white-house-flagging-posts-for...

That is censorship, because social media then bans (censors) those users and the discussion. Which was my exact point.

What do they do in China: “hey this snippet here looks like misinformation” then the company removes that snippet. They extend it to insults about the Chinese race, but don’t we do the same with gender pronouns?

How is it different materially?

My point was censorship is done universally, just in different ways and for different topics. It’s always the same reason though, to avoid some idea the people in power don’t want propagated. Could be a joke, could be “misinformation”, could be that there’s only one good race (no one dare make fun of), or you can have any gender. It’s all just power / politics.

The censored rarely take the time to learn what is being censored because they don’t think to know. You have to keep the idea from entering the mind of the opposition. That’s why you censor in the first place. You have to defame those who question the authority and call them “fascists” so no one listens to them. Self-censoring who you listen to and not telling others “hey this person has an interesting take!” It’s all the same game, a game to control the population.

> Besides, censorship is not inherently bad, and most stable democracies with a functioning legal system will have some form of censorship, to protect minors, for example.

I would argue we don’t see stable “democracies”, we see oligarchies. Why is it ruling families in the UK still effectively rule? Politicians are always from a certain class. Similar in France, when’s the last commoner who speaks like the rural folk who’s held the prime minister seat? We all see how Trump was treated for speaking plainly… then again, he was a “threat to democracy”

The oligarchs control what you can think, through managing what information you can read / see. “Democracy” in the US is a code word, for the status quo.

[ipython]

Fantastic word salad you have there, managing to avoid the entire question posed to you. Shows that you have no cogent argument, just a bunch of grievances. I’m sorry to hear of your problems.

[psyc]

I don’t think you know what word salad is. If you do, way to use sly accusations of mental illness to discredit, supporting their point that you can’t win an argument without cheating.

[lettergram]

Maybe this format would help

Q: How exactly was it censored, and how is it comparable to censorship in China?

A: https://nypost.com/2021/07/15/white-house-flagging-posts-for... That is censorship, because social media then bans (censors) those users and the discussion. Which was my exact point. What do they do in China: “hey this snippet here looks like misinformation” then the company removes that snippet. They extend it to insults about the Chinese race, but don’t we do the same with gender pronouns? How is it different materially?

[ipython]

Maybe I should remind you of the actual words in the gp comment.

> Let's take your first point for example. If I go on Fox News right now and search for articles about the 2020 election being stolen, I get plenty of articles and opinions talking about it. How exactly was it censored, and how is it comparable to censorship in China?

You have conveniently pivoted to a straw man argument about Covid-19 which was not mentioned.

And there are plenty of people on Facebook talking all sorts of crap about vaccines. If it was so stringently “censored” as you claim, it would be hard for us to argue about - as I would have never heard the anti vaxxers arguments. But good lord, they never shut up- so I’m exceptionally aware of their opinions.

[epups]

You are right that he conflated two types of censorship in the West. The first is as you say, eliminate it from mainstream media and let lunatics ramble about it on social media (vaccines, lab theory, etc.). This has an impact on the legitimacy of what's being said, and your exposure to these ideas. The second type of censorship is the outright ban of certain topics, such as the Hunter Biden laptop.

[ipython]

Really? The mainstream media didn’t cover the hunter biden laptop?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/03/30/hunter-...

[lettergram]

1. The primary discussion was around "how was censorship related to China" and the poster gave a random example from my arbitrary list. I responded with an arbitrary example, but still giving an example how censorship is comparable to China.

2. My position has never been the government has to be doing the censorship. People censor, some in media, some in social media, some on HN, some in government, etc.

3. Censorship doesn't mean you cannot reach data; it's a suppression of speech (which Zuckerberg, Dorsey, and Youtube admitted to censoring publicly). https://www.britannica.com/topic/censorship

> censorship, the changing or the suppression or prohibition of speech or writing that is deemed subversive of the common good. It occurs in all manifestations of authority to some degree, but in modern times it has been of special importance in its relation to government and the rule of law.

4. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/did-social-media-actua...

> Ahead of the election, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube promised to clamp down on election misinformation, including unsubstantiated charges of fraud and premature declarations of victory by candidates. And they mostly did just that — though not without a few hiccups.

They have been open about censoring since before the election. Now, if we want to get into government, the FBI interfered by (1) strongly suggesting social media to "limit" (censor) information; and ironically (2) accused of not investigating or sharing relevant information about the candidates (https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/services/files/7CD44E16-BF...)

5. I know many people banned from social media. They can't post on any accounts. I also followed many people I didn't know personally banned. If you ask questions / discuss certain topics you will be removed; typically for sharing particular pieces of content.

[Banana699]

>censorship is not inherently bad

Then why do you get mad when China or the Middle East bans material they find objectionable? They simply have a different definition of what counts as objectionable, that's all, and it's well within their rights to enforce their different cultural values within their borders, just like you argue that a "democracy" has this right.

Also, when I go to Netflix and search for "LGBT", I see tons of material. So that must obviously mean censoring of LGBT is a pathetic lie, it's right there in one (very big, much bigger than Fox) media outlet so it's obviously not censored.

[4512124672456]

> Then why do you get mad when China or the Middle East bans material they find objectionable?

There is a difference between banning content that is objectively harmful (e.g. child porn) and banning content to control and suppress minorities. Just because they can doesn't mean it's good.

> So that must obviously mean censoring of LGBT is a pathetic lie

I never argued this.

[Banana699]

There is no such thing as "objectively harmful", all harm or good is decided through values, and those values differ. The exact same way you deal with paedophilia, is the way some countries deal with the LGBT.

It doesn't have to be governments only as well, the Middle East is majority Muslim after all, and muslims do get incredibly offended at LGBT stuff (a lot of Arabic insults are just variations on "gay"). So, according to you, those private citizens and corporations should be allowed to ban the LGBT, it's not censorship if the government isn't doing it right?

>I never argued this.

No, but you did argue for something indistinguishably similar, which is that because a news story is found on Fox then this news story is not actually censored. So, by that same unassailable logic, LGBT stuff is on Netflix and therefore LGBT stuff is not actually being censored. All objections you have against my satire argument is applicable to your real argument.