[Linguist6514]

It's interesting how they're so concerned with censorship now. Weren't they the ones who were all up in arms about censoring everyone with right-wing views? But now that the script has flipped, suddenly it's a problem. It's not like we didn't try to warn them that if they force open the floodgates of censorship, then it can happen to them too. Maybe, just maybe, we should all stop trying to control what other people think and say. Mind your fucking business and leave other people alone. I hope this gets resolved. I don't believe that anyone should be censored, whether they agree with my views and beliefs or not.

[DharmaPolice]

I think the key thing (which we used to understand but seem to have forgotten) is that restrictions (including censorship) should be based on conduct, not opinion. Someone spamming commercial links, crap flooding, posting child pornography, even constant off-topic posting etc can justifiably be censored on a platform based on their conduct. But as soon as you advocate for censoring someone purely based on an opinion then you're making it dramatically easier for someone who shares your opinion to be censored later on. Although if we're being intellectually honest, even if there hadn't been any banning of wrongthink in the past, this kind of thing might still have happened anyway given the current administration and their allies. But it's definitely made it easier.

I remember when Alex Jones (or someone of that ilk) was being "de-platformed" by Google, Facebook, etc. Not only were people cheering for it, they were denying that being banned from YouTube (for example) was censorship since "there are other video hosting platforms" (yeah, there are but also not really) and "it's only censorship when it's the government who legally restrict you from speech".

(And Alex Jones is a detestable piece of shit just in case you think I'm a fan. But to paraphrase an old saying, freedom of expression is only a principle if it applies to people you utterly despise).

[LocalH]

I just got a seven day suspension from Reddit for reminding a commenter that freedom of speech in the US only protects you from "consequences" from the government. Reddit's claim? That I was "encouraging violence". The root post was about that woman who got fired from Cinnabon after a video of her calling customers the n-word went viral and then the alt-right donated nearly $100,000 to her.

The ban message also claimed the suspension was done without automation.

[Ygg2]

> everyone with right-wing views

Not just them. Anyone being slightly critical of vaccines, Russiagate, etc. Anyone warning about building this censorship apparatus. To paraphrase "Man for All Seasons," they crushed every law to get to the devil.

Now the Devil has turned, and there are no laws to protect them from it.

[fugalfervor]

Ah, "Man for All Seasons", my favorite work of revisionist history that rehabilitates the image of a renowned burner of human flesh.

[fzeroracer]

Who is this nebulous 'they'? The woke? The queer? Or the people in favor of abortion? The way people use 'they' in these arguments implies some level of equal power. And in this same thread in an entirely separate post you go directly to bat in favor of censorship as long as it's part of a 'content policy', which indicates that you're not actually being forthright with what you truly believe.

[Linguist6514]

Censoring nudity is perfectly reasonable. There are people on Facebook for whom nudity is not appropriate. There are also those who just don't want to see nudity. Should everyone who wants to avoid nudity abstain entirely from using Meta apps? The purpose of Facebook was to connect people. It's SOCIAL media, not SEXUAL media. Nudity is not a requirement for connecting with people. Last time I checked, Messenger allows nudity to be sent in private messages and in message groups. It doesn't need to be, and should not be, on Facebook proper.

And to answer your question, "they" is referring to the people who were starkly in favor of censorship of right-wing opinions, and shadow banning and banning people who post right-wing content, or just generally anything that doesn't fall in line with any of the left-wing's billions of ephemeral and mutable narrative goal posts. I used "they" so as to avoid sounding snarky or antagonistic toward any group in particular, but you asked, so...

[immibis]

I know it's a hot take, but I strongly believe that some things are good, and some things are bad. I don't think it's necessary to pick either "all things are good" or "all things are bad".

Like, killing is bad. But if I'm alive in WW2 times and I see Nazi soldiers shooting Jewish protestors on the street, I'm going to be horrified, while if I see Jewish protestors shooting Nazi soldiers on the street, I'm going to be significantly less horrified. One could even argue the latter is a good thing.

[hiddencost]

Right wing views like taking away rights, eliminating trans people, murdering civilians in fishing boats, extraordinary renditions of brown people without cause, ... ? Fuck you.

[SG-]

reproduction and abortion has nothing to do with fake news tho. you're lumping groups of people into a side to justify your bigoted, selfish and ignorant views.

[Ygg2]

The same mechanisms established to fight "fake news" are reused to censor reproduction and abortion rights.

[thrw443]

it does, depends who you ask. who will decide if it does have somethong to do with fake news or not?

[j3th9n]

This.