[aemreunal]

I don't think the example you gave holds. This is how I would characterize that:

Blocking someone = not buying Wired magazine so you can't read it yourself

Banning someone from the internet = banning Wired magazine so no one can ever read it

[googlryas]

Maybe my example was poorly done, but I think it shares the same reasoning flaw that OP had in the original - the belief that a very strong denial is somehow evidence of guilt. I saw similar logic in a COVID thread recently, with someone saying essentially that the lab leak theory must be true, because China is denying it so hard. Well, that's what innocent people do too when they're wrongly accused of something.

[seanmcdirmid]

> with someone saying essentially that the lab leak theory must be true, because China is denying it so hard.

The Chinese media often denies rumors that turn out to be true, for example, a week before Beijing instituted a car plate lottery, the local media was busy denying that it was going to happen (since everyone was rushing out to buy cars). If they took the time to deny something, then there has to be something to it right?

But this is more like given a conspiracy theory some life by vigorously denying it. If China were more western media savvy, they would just ignore the claim as too crazy to comment on. IF the USA did similar vigorous denials (since it has been suggested that the CIA engineered the virus in the lab in the USA) did the same, I'm sure people would be talking about that also.

[function_seven]

> the belief that a very strong denial is somehow evidence of guilt.

That's not the evidence of guilt. They can deny it as often and as strongly as they want. When they instead ban the article in their country, then it's doing the thing they deny they do.

[solveit]

Banning the publication of media when accused of illiberalism is in fact evidence of illiberalism.

[cma]

I thought blocking someone prevents them from replying to your tweets, and doesn't just prevent you from reading their tweets.