By your standard every newspaper, every TV channel, every website that refuses to publish my views is censoring me. It's an absurd standard to call censorship.
Discord has made no attempt to stop anyone saying anything, they're just chosen not to lend these people their megaphone.
This is one of the more stupid soundbites the pro-censorship crowd has come up with. A good red flag, though.
Discord reacted to how the platform they had already given was being used. That's different, practically and morally, from NBC not giving them a TV show.
"Pro-censorship" is such a ridiculous, extremist term. You can't just pretend everyone in the world falls into either a "for" or "against" censorship group. Everybody (well, 99.99%, maybe) accepts that some censorship is necessary, but that not everything should be censored.
Let's start with the basics. Forget the selective enforcement aspect and the lawyering over the definition of "censorship" - can anything a private company does with its private property ever be criticized?
Terms of service are not above criticism, did not say it and did not imply it. I don't understand how you came to think that considering that in your previous post there is no criticism of discords TOS.
I was simply replaying to your statement that: "Discord reacted to how the platform they had already given was being used.". I don't understand why anyone would think that the owner of the platform should not be able to dictate the terms of use of their platform or react if those terms are not followed.
Lets apply this idea further: google maps could refuse to probide navigation to strip club, water company could cut off water supply if they think you are having a swinger party, and electric company could threaten to cut you off if you install solar panels.
Can you point me to where I said that TOS can not be criticised or where I said that private entities can apply any rules they want? No? Can you then explain how what you wrote applies to what I wrote?
Discord is not a public utility. Discord guilds are not public service points either. All the services offered by Discord are strictly capped too. This is the opposite of what you get from a public utility.
Discord did lend these people their megaphone, though. What they
did is like a news show interviewing a guest and then quickly
cutting to advertisements because the guest started to make
uncomfortable statements. And that sort of thing is very unusual
in democratic countries, maybe unless a certain political figure
starts spreading obvious misinformation with the goal of
undermining the election process.
and it just "happened to be" done after the short fiasco. Or is your argument that they weren't using dirty words until after the fiasco started?
That they can is not being argued, that they did it now is the issue.
In the same vein, no one would argue that a male manager shouldn't be able to schedule a female employee on their shifts. But when that male manager asks for a date and is refused, the action takes on an entirely different tone.
Why is it a wrong comparison are you not being censored (according to the definition you provided).
I’m pointing out a ridiculous application of what you’ve pointed out, private business, or an individual stoping you from speaking while technically censorship, happens all the time and no one raises an eyebrow.
Would shushing a whole crowd of people talking in the cinema be untoward?
True, great point. Reddit is not part of the “real world”. Got it!
But in this case, it’s a perfect analogue, that illustrates why decrying censorship here is odd.
Reddit can kick people out if they don’t like the behaviour. This happens every day in businesses all over the world (virtual and non virtual) and it is not decried and for the most part is approved of.
I haven't said that. I said that there isn't always a real world counterpart for virtual things. You can replace "real" with physical. At least you tried to not make the usual car comparison.
No it's not a perfect analogue. To make the cinema comparison work: There is a cinema. You can rent rooms in that cinema. You and your friends go in to talk about stuff. Someone else comes in and "shushes" you instead of going to another room where nobody is in.
Reddit can also kick out people for having the wrong opinion, as they do, as was observed. Banning for the wrong opinion is of course censorship. Banning for specific lingo used by those people is also censorship.
There is difference between banning for wrong opinions and banning for eg. spamming. The line is slim.
Supposedly, until you criticize the idea of taking their money and giving it to everyone who claims to need it more than them.
Arguments like these are all to often made out of convenience, but should be made in good faith and on principle. Do you truly believe in their right to private property?
Are you trying to argue some kind of Marxist position in order to show censorship can exist without government involvement.
I’m happy to have a discussion on why capital owners probably stole their wealth at some point. But you need to take me on the journey to how that’s related to censorship
My point is, this argument that "they're a private company" is great, and I 100% agree with it. But I usually find that people that make this argument don't actually believe that these companies have the right to their private property, they just use it because they're ideologically opposed to the people getting banned for whatever reason. They'll say that a private company has the right to it's property and then in the next breath call them evil for having a lot of property and demand that they get taxed out of existence.
You can if you want, but if you don't believe corporations should have a right to their property, tossing "they have a right to ban you from speaking" in someone's face is a bit disingenuous.
And also, counterproductive. If you'd like to change the rules, perhaps defending them every time they're used to hurt your ideological opponents is not the way to do that. Maybe it would be more effective to agree with them and help them.
I don’t have any ideological opponents... I’m pretty happy to be convinced either way on most issues. But colour me unconvinced on this one.
They aren’t banning you from speaking, just stopping you from doing it in their house, you can continue your message everywhere else.
This meta discussion about the actual point feels awkward. Is the alternative you are suggesting that you have to accept whatever anyone says always? Is it more nuanced than that?
