Is censorship ok if the person you're censoring is wrong?
-
wrote on last edited by [email protected]This post did not contain any content.
-
This post did not contain any content.
No. The wrong person should be debated openly IMO
-
This post did not contain any content.
It's not about right or wrong.
Censorship is okay if the content harms those who hear it. You censor a naked man jacking off in a kindergarden because it will traumatize the children (and possibly more people).
If someone consistently spreads misinformation or disinformation that sounds convincing and will likely harm people (think donald trump and alice weidel) you need to censor them to protect those who are unable to understand the vileness of their agenda.
Equally, you need to educate both children to not go home with the nice man and the public to not listen to fascists and neoliberals.
-
It's not about right or wrong.
Censorship is okay if the content harms those who hear it. You censor a naked man jacking off in a kindergarden because it will traumatize the children (and possibly more people).
If someone consistently spreads misinformation or disinformation that sounds convincing and will likely harm people (think donald trump and alice weidel) you need to censor them to protect those who are unable to understand the vileness of their agenda.
Equally, you need to educate both children to not go home with the nice man and the public to not listen to fascists and neoliberals.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Hmm. Maybe.
-
Hmm. Maybe.
"Your mommy has to go away for a while, but she loves you and misses you" is less harmful than "your idiot mom got dragged under a truck and is in critical condition at St. Olga's"
-
No. The wrong person should be debated openly IMO
some debates are harmful. fox news often has "debates" which are staged performances. the debate isn't important, the honesty is.
-
This post did not contain any content.
No. People often disagree on what is right and wrong. Then the stronger part will just censor the weaker part regardless of who is wrong.
-
No. The wrong person should be debated openly IMO
wrote on last edited by [email protected]In Reddit and Lemmy the names of the censors are hidden, and the debate is hidden too.
I don't know how they do it on X and Facebook.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
If the vast majority of people thought about anything that escaped the material world, maybe. As it is, anyone who understands how stupid, gullible, emotional, irrational, selfish and greedy human beings can be (especially those without any sort of moral code, like irreligious hedonists, for instance) and has the money to flood media with propaganda will inevitably make people believe what he or she wants.
The comments here are very idealistic, but I live in reality. I know there's one wise man out of a hundred, the others focus on practical matters and football. Unless you can just snap your fingers and make people, for instance, not be stupid and intellectually lazy enough to vote for a M/BILLIONAIRE "wise leader of the proletariat" (honestly, every time I type something Trump related I wonder how we've made it this far as a species... then I remember the atomic bomb is not even a century old
), then no, you WILL have to censor some folks. Or, said passively, some folks need to be censored... Sadly, in many countries, the ones who do the mass immoral brainwashing also have the political power to silence and incarcerate those who oppose them. -
No. People often disagree on what is right and wrong. Then the stronger part will just censor the weaker part regardless of who is wrong.
Asuming a Lemmy where censorship is impossible, how would you handle illegal conversations?
-
Asuming a Lemmy where censorship is impossible, how would you handle illegal conversations?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]::: spoiler spoiler
askldjfals;jflsad;
::: -
::: spoiler spoiler
askldjfals;jflsad;
:::Yeah, but that doesn't answer the question.
The best way to stop censorship is to make it impossible. So, if censorship is impossible, how would you handle illegal conversations?
-
Hmm. Maybe.
Not maybe. Just science. Example: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10011534/
-
If the vast majority of people thought about anything that escaped the material world, maybe. As it is, anyone who understands how stupid, gullible, emotional, irrational, selfish and greedy human beings can be (especially those without any sort of moral code, like irreligious hedonists, for instance) and has the money to flood media with propaganda will inevitably make people believe what he or she wants.
The comments here are very idealistic, but I live in reality. I know there's one wise man out of a hundred, the others focus on practical matters and football. Unless you can just snap your fingers and make people, for instance, not be stupid and intellectually lazy enough to vote for a M/BILLIONAIRE "wise leader of the proletariat" (honestly, every time I type something Trump related I wonder how we've made it this far as a species... then I remember the atomic bomb is not even a century old
), then no, you WILL have to censor some folks. Or, said passively, some folks need to be censored... Sadly, in many countries, the ones who do the mass immoral brainwashing also have the political power to silence and incarcerate those who oppose them.Maybe the power to censor could be kept out of the hands of individuals. Make it a democratic decision.
-
Yeah, but that doesn't answer the question.
The best way to stop censorship is to make it impossible. So, if censorship is impossible, how would you handle illegal conversations?
wrote on last edited by [email protected]::: spoiler spoiler
askldjfals;jflsad;
::: -
Yeah, but that doesn't answer the question.
The best way to stop censorship is to make it impossible. So, if censorship is impossible, how would you handle illegal conversations?
If it's impossible to censor people, you would hardly have a strong prosecution arguing you should have done something impossible.
-
Maybe the power to censor could be kept out of the hands of individuals. Make it a democratic decision.
I believe in democracy as an ideal but I don't see how that would work. Oh well.
-
Asuming a Lemmy where censorship is impossible, how would you handle illegal conversations?
Well now we are - discussing a much more specific scenario and not just any scenario where someone is seen as wrong by someone else as in the original question.
Anyway, the owner of any private publishing platform must be allowed to choose what they publish or rules for publishing. If it is âcensorshipâ that publishers cannot be forced by any and all to publish illegal content then yeah, that form of âcensorshipâ is entirely justifiable.
-
This post did not contain any content.
What is with these vague, open-ended questions with no effort put in to try to provide any detail or literally anything to engage with?
Now instead of answering your question I have to ask a bunch of questions myself:
- How, exactly, are they wrong?
- Are they merely incorrect?
- Are they actively spreading disinformation?
- Is their speech causing harm? If so what kind?
- Is it direct and measurable like hate-speech or incitements to violence?
- Or is it something vague and nebulous like 'decadence' or 'societal harm'?
- Who decided that they are wrong?
- Experts?
- Moderation teams?
- Bureaucrats?
- And most importantly, who is doing the censoring?
- In what form?
- With what authority?
- In what medium?
- For what purpose (actual, not stated)?
Context matters, friend. Please provide some.
- How, exactly, are they wrong?
-
This post did not contain any content.
"Wrong" can mean so many things.
Removing misinformation isn't censorship, for example. Similar with removing off-topic threads or comments.
Removing illegal content is censorship if the law is unjust (eg. political dissent restrictions) but not if the law is just (eg. CSAM removal).
Removing immoral content is way dicier, because morality is not fully mapped, and what one person thinks is immoral might seem perfectly moral to another (eg. blasphemy or profane language). I personally would not removed content I found immoral unless it violated community standards, and would consider such removals an overreach but not censorship unless it was selectively targeted at an individual or group.
I guess by my lights to be censorship it has to be:
-
subjective
-
unjust
-
systematic
Removing something objectively incorrect or in the wrong place is not censorship. Removing something justly proscribed is not censorship.
Removing a thread when one viewpoint or group posts about it but not when another posts about it IS censorship.
-
