[elurg]

The argument that "it's not censorship if a private company does it" was always weak.

What these revelations show is that a lot of so-called moderation was done at the explicit direction of government employees. How do you defend this? "it's not censorship if the private company willingly complies with government requests"? A refusal by twitter would have had quite high costs for the company.

The cooperation between private companies and government censors is so deep that this is barely distinguishable from direct censorship.

[asynchronous]

The fact that comments such as yours are getting downvoted straight to the bottom tells me that people simply aren’t willing to see the implication this has to whatever illusion of freedom the American people still possess.

[truthisworse]

The truth is much worse. This didnt only happen a twitter, its happening at every major online space including here.

The inability for hn commenters to speak forthright and integrity and principles shows the rot tgat exists here. Hn is largely controlled and nothing they dont want people to see is allowed. Accounts are shadow banned, ips are range banned, individuals here are tracked and not allowed Accounts or voices here. This comment not even allowed because of selective rules to ensure the truth is not seen. You cannot debate people here in good faith. HN is a moral cesspool.

[goostavos]

>How do you defend this?

From this thread, it seems by just going "pfft... no big deal."

As long as there's a layer of abstraction ("I didn't kill him. The bullets and the fall did") and it's applying to speech we generally don't care for (misinformation, "hate speech", etc..), then I guess we're cool with it?

It's tough not to be cynical at times. A decade after PRISM, the government controlling speech indirectly via "polite suggestions" mostly just fills me with similar feelings of "no big deal." Not because it isn't, but because it's expected.