Hello Similar Worlds

@Ynotisay I think those definitions need redifined. This era of technology has simply created a loophole to allow censorship to occur via legalese. The definition itself is flawed concerning these big tech companies. Spaces like this are defacto public space. Its not the same as a private newspaper who silences a journalist because the owner of the newspaper decides it doean't want to promote the message. We are talking about a company who has provided a platform for people to communicate. Sure, the government can't take down a private website per the current definition of censorship, but these companies can stop anyone they want from being a part of the conversation simply because they are hosting the site the conversation is taking place on. Imagine a world where they take all the stories to private websites and the only place the conversation is occuring is on private websites where they silence whoever they want. That is what they want. Its almost already here. This cancel culture mentality is a very toxic, very slippery slope towards tyranny and it shouldn't be taken lightly simply because the legal definition is flawed.

@TruthGate [i]Sure, the government can't take down a private website per the current definition of censorship, but these companies can stop anyone they want from being a part of the conversation simply because they are hosting the site the conversation is taking place on. [/i]

Right. That's capitalism. Companies and corporations can call their own shots within the guidelines of the law. Disallowing that is where the real slippery slope comes in.

And I see cancel culture as being just that. Cultural. When it stops being effective it will stop as well. It's already a very different animal than it was just a few years back. Except for Bud Light.

@Ynotisay noting that the entity itself (meta for example) is a private company, we can all agree that what the user of a platform says does not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of stated corporate entity. For example, if zuckerberg himself said something shareholders dissagreed with, they can't censor him, all they can do is remove their support. However, the other way around would allow zuckerberg to ban them from the platform altogether. Noting that while yes, this is a private company we are talking about, it is also a very public space. Users of the platform do not pay to have their profiles hosted, it is available for anyone. That essentially makes the site a public space. So what we are looking at is a new type of media and these legal definitions need redifined for that. And i am not talking about the definition of censorship, i am talking about defining the difference between public and private. Meta has its own facebook page for example. On that page, they should be allowed to censor whatever they want, that is their right. Just like any user can block someone from their profile. The profiles themselves however easily fall under public domain since anyone can show up and comment. This becomes evident when examining group structures. Meta does not simply allow groups to police themselves, it tells groups how to behave and bans anyone it wants to for any reason they see fit. There doesn't have to be a technical violation, they can simply silence people because they do not like what they have to say, even if it does not adhere with a particular groups philosophy. That is a dangerous power in an era where social media platforms control the space where major conversations take place. Youtube for example can demonitize anyone they want, the error in judgment happens when they start removing peoples videos when no law has been broken. This is a censorship in the technological era when so much of society depends on these online interactions. There are better ways to handle these things than to just silence people.

@TruthGate Well stated but I disagree. No body is forced to join Facebook. Or any of the other social media sites. Censorship comes from governments. No individual private entities. Their game - their rules. And is it really worse to ban, let's say, an extremist pushing for an armed rebellion than to allow "media" outlets, driven by pure propaganda, to exist? Either way it comes down to one thing. Choice. If you don't like or agree with something you have the power to avoid it. Companies don't like that because eyes mean revenue. So, as I mentioned, this is capitalism in action.

@Ynotisay from that perspective i can see the validation in your opinion, you are correct.. noone is forced to be on facebook or youtube etc.. however.. we do have to admit that having no social media at all is social suicide these days, we all have to stay plugged in somehow. Thats all i am saying is that we all need a public space these things can occur in. The fact that big tech has a monopoly on the platforms where these conversations take place is the problem. There needs to be a place we can all take part in the conversation. Also.. for your comparison question, i would say both are equally as concerning. If someone is calling for an armed rebelion, i think there are consequences to that they should be prepared for.. (fuck around and find out) calling someone out to fight and not expecting them to swing would be ignorant. Likewise, allowing major media monopolies to control the narrative is just as dangerous as censoring the rebel.. if i am honest.. im not seeing much of a difference between the two situations.

@TruthGate Well said. But there's a really easy option. Don't use social media. I don't. I come here if that qualifies. Otherwise I just see it as made up world where people need to be seen. Not my jam. So I'm an example, and I'm hardly alone, of those who don't use it. My choice. I do the same with companies whose policies I don't support. I don't buy from them. And the reality is that any of the social media sites can go the way of MySpace. What we see now won't last. They'll be replaced by something new. And that's because PEOPLE run the show. Just like they do with voting. Of course, "we" don't vote. And then "we" whine.
The reality is that we all can go and have a 'conversation.' But I don't buy, in any way, the notion that all opinions should be heard and respected. That's like paneling a climate change denier looking like to sell books to conspiracists along with experts. I don't see that as fair. I see it as spreading misinformation under the guise of 'every opinion matters.' They don't. Probably why I visit this place. I block nonsense that doesn't make my life better. That's my choice. All I see the social media companies doing, outside of covering their assess and serving advertisers, is trying to create platforms that serve the most people. Don't like Twitter? Go to Truth Social. The funny thing to me is that SO many think they're SO important that someone is out to censor them. That's just poor me nonsense. Companies make rules. Don't abide them and you don't get to play in the sandbox. That's hardly censorship. Censorship is Russia not allowing dissenting views or real information to be disseminated. And they're not alone. The U.S. doesn't know what real censorship is. And I"m glad about that.

@Ynotisay The epoch times getting their printing press in hong kong burnt to the ground for example.. a man ready to testify against hillary clinton shooting himself in the back of the head twice. Alex jones being deplatformed because of his eccentricity doesn't quite feel as nefarious when you look at true silencing of dissent. I will agree with you there, all i am saying is that these companies... they simply have the wrong philosophy on things. I am about done with other forms of social media myself. The problem is that i want to go on those platforms to talk to people about why they are still there, cant boycot a company if noone knows there is a boycot because they dont use the same social network. Ironically enough, the best way to tell people to boycot facebook is by telling the people that are actually using facebook. And of course facebook is going to silence an opinion like that because it costs them money. If they hadn't decided to ban me for stupid shit, constantly targeting every little misstep i made, i wouldnt want them boycotted though. I wouldnt care. They are killing themselves and that is the beauty of capitalism.. so long as there is competition, we dont have to put up with it, we can go somewhere else. I think that is the main frustration these days. Everyone wants an alternative, but everyone was on facebook.. i mean it was as effective for getting ahold of people as the yellow pages. So far.. none of the rival forums and media sites can even come close to that level of connectivity. What facebook offered the world was unique and they fucking killed it. It could have been so much more beneficial to humanity and they turned it into a cesspool.. that is the real frustration here if i am being honest with myself. I loved the idea of what facebook could have been and i still think we as a species need something to fill that void and until something does.. i will continue being a foul mouthed agent of chaos in their heals.

@TruthGate Ah. Now I get it. [i]If they hadn't decided to ban me for stupid shit[/i]...
So this is sort of a personal thing? That became "censorship?" OK. That's your thing.

But yeah. Facebook could have been an extraordinary tool. It still is for some in some ways. But PEOPLE turned it in to what it is. And that includes governments around the world who use it as a political tool. There's nations out there where people get the predominance of their information from Facebook. And that information is strictly controlled. Hell, a lot of people in the U.S. rely on Facebook. The addiction is built in to the model. Do they have a choice? They do. Do they use it? Not really.Truthful information isn't as important to some as a "like."
We, as societies, get what we deserve. Can't fight that. Most are apathetic. It is what it is. But if you want the idealized version of Facebook, you probably see how that doesn't take place without guardrails or, as some call it, censorship. Don't give the masses too much credit dude. The masses aren't too sharp.

@Ynotisay well yes.. i agree with everything you have said so far. I do have to say though that in the case of facebook, it isn' t *just* a personal vendetta. I have sincere disdain for their business model, its toxic. Further down that rabbithole however i have to admit, it is only toxic because people are. People.. omfg.. people..
" A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."
- Tommy Lee Jones