[hamhock666]

I think to most people on the internet in the early 2000s, it was unthinkable that content on the major platforms would be censored based on political content. I don’t think there is any evidence for that, it’s more of a general feeling, and the fact that political censorship took off in the next decade.

If these platforms had started out censoring particular political content, they would not have had the same mass adoption, or there may have been more free-speech competitors.

[sanity]

Agreed, the overt political censorship didn't start until the mid-2010s, over a decade after today's tech giants solidified their dominant positions.

[joshuamorton]

I'd potentially reverse this: 'overt' political censorship didn't start until certain creators started to market their otherwise objectionable content as "political" as a way to bypass existing moderation policies.

[numpad0]

It's App Store. It all started with the App Store.

[Zak]

Advertisers are also considerably more picky about the content they're willing to be associated with, and considerably more influential with regard to the content most people see online than they were 20 years ago. Advertiser demands have produced rapid policy changes from the likes of Youtube and Reddit where other forms of pressure have had little effect.

[ImPostingOnHN]

I agree with the person you're responding to, that the assertions you're making here don't seem to be supported by the evidence:

As one of those people in question, it was never unthinkable. Even during the 2000's, it was common to ban people from MSN chatrooms. Before that, it was common to ban people from IRC channels, individual IRC servers, or even entire IRC networks. Did the GNAA have a right to "be platformed" indefinitely wherever they wanted?

Also, the "censorship" in question more often deals with things like insults and other incivility, spamming, death threats, etc. Not mere "political" speech. I doubt many folks were banned from /r/SCOTUS for politely saying "I politically disagree with this ruling". We see via screenshots in the amicus the sort of stuff that was actually moderated.

Indeed, the "censorship" which spawned these laws was the banning of a dude actively calling for violent insurrection against the government, and receiving it, and continuing to encourage it during the violent insurrection. That's the "political speech" the bill authors had in mind when drafting it. It's possible that the "censorship" in question is all that stopped the putsch from succeeding. One can see why fans of said dude and his insurrection were so upset by that.

[hamhock666]

I think you’re right that people have been banned from things as long as the internet has been around. However more tools exist today to censor, things like AI generating and reading subtitles for YT demonetization and algorithm deranking.

If someone makes a threat on a person or groups life online, or doing something illegal, then I agree it shouldn’t be allowed. But censorship today goes far beyond that.

The purpose of the platform matters. MSN chats (group chats?) and sub-reddits are smaller places presumably set up by another user for a specific purpose. I have no problem with people being banned/censored for whatever reason from these smaller forums.

I have an issue with censorship when the platform is generic, not dedicated to a particular topic or group, like Twitter, YouTube, or Reddit as a whole. When one or more dominant third party platforms censor the same people, it has an effect similar to that of government censorship.

I also think the censorship will backfire, because by being shut down, it gives power to the ideas being censored. “There must be a reason they are shutting down discussion. They have no real answer to it!”

I agree that online harassment is ugly, but I still believe in absolute free speech on these generic platforms. The best solution to all of this would be to have block lists that people could opt-in or out of. Don’t want to see something? Subscribe to the block list.

[ImPostingOnHN]

> more tools exist today to censor, things like AI generating and reading subtitles for YT demonetization and algorithm deranking

I don't see how that justifies the government compelling you or I or IRC chanops or subreddit moderators or Twitter admins to say what the government wants us to say. None of those were used to ban the former president when he was engaging in the "political speech" of inciting a violent insurrection and encouraging it while it was happening.

> If someone makes a threat on a person or groups life online, or doing something illegal, then I agree it shouldn’t be allowed. But censorship today goes far beyond that.

And yet, the speech the government is trying to compel here includes, but is not limited to: insults; slurs; obscenity; spam; inciting violence; inciting insurrection; death threats; and more.

> The purpose of the platform matters

Does it, though? That seems like an arbitrary line drawn to avoid logical inconsistencies. Who defines what the purpose is? Who defines how it matters?

> The best solution to all of this would be to have block lists that people could opt-in or out of. Don’t want to see something? Subscribe to the block list.

Is it, though? This part of the post you replied to, bears repeating:

> Indeed, the "censorship" which spawned these laws was the banning of a dude actively calling for violent insurrection against the government, and receiving it, and continuing to encourage it during. That's the "political speech" the bill authors had in mind when drafting it. It's possible that the "censorship" in question is all that stopped the putsch from succeeding.

Blocklists wouldn't have prevented it. If you or I or Twitter don't want to aid and abet violence and insurrection, the government should not be able to compel us to do so.