[georgiapeach]

We are talking about the exact same thing and you keep trying to evade the question.

How would you feel if websites colluded to prevent you from communicating at all, based on what they consider to be undesirable, not based on what you consider to be undesirable? By definition, you're already negatively predisposed to what you consider to be undesirable, so your proposed scenario never comes up. Mine does.

It doesn't need to have anything to do with profanity. It could be something as simple as you being a pro-censorship piece of shit. Or something else. Who knows. It doesn't matter. What matters is them oppressing you the way you'd like to oppress others, based on criteria you don't necessarily agree with, and possibly don't even know. How would you feel about that?

Stop trying to evade the question. If you evade it one more time, I will consider you to have conceded.

[seanflyon]

What question have I evaded?

"How would you feel if websites colluded to prevent you from communicating at all"? They don't have that ability; a website cannot reach through my computer screen and gag me. Since the you question are literally asking is absurd, I guessed you really mean to ask how I would feel if a website removed my comment, which I answered. Now I think you are asking how I would feel if every single website agreed to a common blacklist and put me on it. This is still quite far fetched and drastically different from what I am talking about, but I will answer it anyway. I would feel annoyed and embarrassed.

What I am talking about (removing vile comments) is already done manually, so your notion that it "never comes up" is strange. If you right to force other to distribute rape threats is so important to you then I doubt we will come to an agreement.

Lastly, there is no need to call me a "piece of shit". If you stoop to this level again, I will consider you to have conceded.

[georgiapeach]

> They don't have that ability;

Yes, they do. What stops private parties from colluding? Nothing. What stops your local ISP (in most locations, in a position of local monopoly) from denying you access, even without participation from websites? Nothing. What stops them from doing this for their own reasons, which you might not necessarily agree with, and possibly don't even know? Nothing.

And the actual point that you keep evading -- what stops other parties from approving of ideas and speech that you disapprove of, and vice versa? Nothing. What stops them from oppressing you, the way you want to oppress others, in a way that enforces this diametrically opposed configuration of approval and disapproval? Nothing. What stops them from considering every idea and form of speech that you've ever perpetrated, and every idea and form of speech that you stand for, to be vile, and to do everything in their power to censor, silence, and oppress you as a result? Nothing.

You have evaded once again, and lost by default. Thanks for your time, anyway.

P.S. I didn't call you a piece of shit, the hypothetical oppressive parties in the hypothetical scenario did. You lose by default for putting words in my mouth, as well.

[seanflyon]

You said "prevent you from communicating at all" I pointed out that websites clearly and obviously do not have this power to do what you are literally suggesting and asked what you actually meant. You ignored my response and my question. At this point I think you are being purposely obtuse. Either that or you did not comprehend my comment.

I have already answered the question you think I am evading.