This is one of the more stupid soundbites the pro-censorship crowd has come up with. A good red flag, though.

Discord reacted to how the platform they had already given was being used. That's different, practically and morally, from NBC not giving them a TV show.

"Pro-censorship" is such a ridiculous, extremist term. You can't just pretend everyone in the world falls into either a "for" or "against" censorship group. Everybody (well, 99.99%, maybe) accepts that some censorship is necessary, but that not everything should be censored.

Moderation is when pornography is banned from r/programming. Censorship is when pornography is banned from r/pornography.

Most pro-censorship voices motte-and-bailey the latter by conflating it with the former.

> Discord reacted to how the platform they had already given was being used.

They did not give it without terms of usage so your point is mute.

Moot. Are Terms of Service above criticism now?

Let's start with the basics. Forget the selective enforcement aspect and the lawyering over the definition of "censorship" - can anything a private company does with its private property ever be criticized?

Thanks for the correction.

Terms of service are not above criticism, did not say it and did not imply it. I don't understand how you came to think that considering that in your previous post there is no criticism of discords TOS.

I was simply replaying to your statement that: "Discord reacted to how the platform they had already given was being used.". I don't understand why anyone would think that the owner of the platform should not be able to dictate the terms of use of their platform or react if those terms are not followed.

Lets apply this idea further: google maps could refuse to probide navigation to strip club, water company could cut off water supply if they think you are having a swinger party, and electric company could threaten to cut you off if you install solar panels.

Do you want to live like that?

Can you point me to where I said that TOS can not be criticised or where I said that private entities can apply any rules they want? No? Can you then explain how what you wrote applies to what I wrote?

as soon as this private property has become a public service, yes. It should be properly regulated.

Discord is not a public utility. Discord guilds are not public service points either. All the services offered by Discord are strictly capped too. This is the opposite of what you get from a public utility.

Discord did lend these people their megaphone, though. What they did is like a news show interviewing a guest and then quickly cutting to advertisements because the guest started to make uncomfortable statements. And that sort of thing is very unusual in democratic countries, maybe unless a certain political figure starts spreading obvious misinformation with the goal of undermining the election process.

and it just "happened to be" done after the short fiasco. Or is your argument that they weren't using dirty words until after the fiasco started?

That they can is not being argued, that they did it now is the issue.

In the same vein, no one would argue that a male manager shouldn't be able to schedule a female employee on their shifts. But when that male manager asks for a date and is refused, the action takes on an entirely different tone.