Mind not to call it "censorship" when nazis get deplatformed though. It isn't censorship but their whole argument depends on it being censorship, because then they can invoke freezepeach.
Factually, they can continue to spout racist shit. Facebook and Twitter (and us) are entitled not to amplify that by offering it a social media platform. Censorship would control their actual right towards speech or writing, not access to voluntary publishing agreements.
@kawaiipunk I know you get this but unfortunately loads of the fediverse do not get this. Some of them would even read it and think "Wait, someone's freezepeach is being offended??? We better welcome these nazis, everyone deserves freezepeach"
@cathal yeh good point! I guess I was kind of seeing it as them considering it censorship. This is a helpful perspective thanks.
@blueplanetslittlehelper @kawaiipunk There's the definition of censorship, and there's the common usage in context. When people talk about "censorship" in the context of rabid white nationalists getting kicked off sites, they're talking about "first amendment violation", or in other words "government censorship".
We could try to reeducate everyone on the correct, general, usage of "censor" but the demagogues' audiences aren't in the classroom.
@cathal @kawaiipunk I linked those toots not due to the definition vs. Common usage of censorship (only that private companies cannot violate the First Amendment). Instead because of his support of "my house - my rules" or "Different social spaces have different rules and norms." and that, in later toots, he points out the difficulties in enforcing policies against hate speech.
I agree the first toot could use a better term than censorship in this context.
I quoted Doctorow "There's an obvious, trivial point to be made here: Twitter, Apple and Google are private companies. When they remove speech on the basis of its content, it's censorship, but it's not *government* censorship. It doesn't violate the First Amendment."
If that's not true I'm sorry and thank you for the info.
@blueplanetslittlehelper @kawaiipunk I think he gets it but is trying to rescue the word "censorship" from the ambiguity it's in these days. He means that the word can apply to any editorial decision not to publish or platform something, and so it applies to tech companies. But the First Amendment and the general idea of "Free Speech" is more specific: that you shouldn't be risking your safety or freedom by speaking.
@blueplanetslittlehelper @kawaiipunk In that sense, then it is indeed censorship (technically) when Twitter refuses to publish your racist nonsense, but not in the way that (sensible) people usually mean "Free Speech". Whereas if Twitter won a court injunction to stop you saying something, then that might be censorship in the manner of First Amendment / Free Speech.
Doctorow is correct about the general meaning of "censorship" but I think usage is changing too fast to save.
@blueplanetslittlehelper @kawaiipunk The Freezepeachers are exploiting this ambiguity successfully because most of us agree that, in general, it's bad when governments can exercise their power to stop things being said, and most of us agree that the cost of free speech is shitty speech. But the ambiguous meaning of censorship means that asshats can use it when they are just banned from Twitter and some of their audience will nod and say "Yes, that is indeed censorship, hmm"
@blueplanetslittlehelper @kawaiipunk Doctorow would like to rescue the general meaning and have people be more discerning and incisive when ambiguous claims are made. I figure that the momentum is with the newer, narrower "censorship is when governments do it" version and accelerate the shift by disclaiming censorship when govs aren't involved.
It's a difference of opinion and approach to a commonly recognised underlying issue, IMO.
Sunbeam City is a anticapitalist, antifascist solarpunk instance that is run collectively.