[Theory5]

There's a difference between content moderation and censorship. Not to mention shaping user experience.

For example, If a site has a mechanism where after X number of downvotes by users, your comment is hidden, that's not censorship.

You've spoken your piece, and other users voted on if they liked your comment or not, or if it contributed to the conversation or provided useful information, etc.

Those other things you mentioned, you do so without context. No social media site can function and be a useful and valuable place to visit without some form of content moderation.

The distinction lies in where the line is drawn. Can you (constructively) criticize the site mods or parent company? Speak your own views in a reasonable discussion that don't cross the line (calls for violence, unintelligible ranting, trolling)?

There's a fine line for a lot of this.

[ekianjo]

> There's a difference between content moderation and censorship.

Not at all. Whenever some individuals posts ONE piece of content that's not acceptable for some obscure non-written reason, the censorship hammer falls on the whole profile/account of said person, thereby removing all historical acceptable communication as well.

If it was really different, you would ONLY censor the problematic piece of content, not everything back to the roots of history.

[commandlinefan]

> There's a difference between content moderation and censorship

There should be a difference, but in practice, content moderation tools are abused to enact agenda-driven censorship. Always.