[woojoo666]

Cancellation is not the same as simply voicing disapproval. Cancellation is closely intertwined with mob mentality and identity politics.

And telling people that mob mentality is bad, is not censorship. Telling people to self correct is different from telling a platform to correct people

[slg]

>Telling people to self correct is different from telling a platform to correct people

How are they different?

You telling me not do to something would cause me to self censor.

Me telling a theater to not host an event with a controversial figure would cause the theater to self censor.

Either way there is some external force that is pressuring for a change in expression. That is true regardless of whether they are motivated by mob mentality, identity politics, or anything else. I don't know why the motivation for the speech should even matter unless you are arguing that some speech shouldn't be protected based on the motivation behind the speech.

[Vt71fcAqt7]

>You telling me not do to something would cause me to self censor.

Would it? If you don't agree, you should not listen. According to your view, if I told you to stop commenting on HN you would stop? I'm not forcing you to do anything.

>Me telling a theater to not host an event with a controversial figure would cause the theater to self censor.

The theater is not the one being censored here but the one censoring. When you do it to yourself, you are both the censor and being censored.

>Either way there is some external force that is pressuring for a change in expression. That is true regardless of whether they are motivated by mob mentality, identity politics, or anything else.

Me telling you my opionin is not an external force that is pressuring for a change in expression. Or, it is, but only in the hope that you yourself change your mind. I can't force you to do anything. This is known as a discussion:

>the activity in which people talk about something and tell each other their ideas or opinions[0]

>I don't know why the motivation for the speech should even matter unless you are arguing that some speech shouldn't be protected based on the motivation behind the speech.

Back to the "shouldn't be protected" argument? We aren't talking about a matter of law but of right and wrong. The law provides us a space to discuss what that means for ourselves. If people use that power to shut others down that's wrong but the most we can do is point out to those people that they are wrong.

[0]https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/discu...

[woojoo666]

Personally I would consider neither of those examples as censorship. Unless the theater in your second example was the only theater in the world. When I said platform, I probably should have clarified that I meant "big platform".

There is still a difference though. With self correction, you make the choice. With platform censorship, the platform makes the choice for you. There may be an external force in both cases, but in the former case you can still choose to ignore it.