> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that."
> If you're tired of censorship, cancel culture, and the erosion of civil liberties subscribe to Reclaim The Net.
> this is a glaring example of censorship and overreach by tech giant companies who control so much of the online space.”
That's the website slogan, not part of the article.
If Facebook reversed the decision, it's not censorship.
> If Facebook reversed the decision, it's not censorship.
Using a different example, I wanted to eat in a local restaurant [a privately owned company providing a public service entirely on their own terms] but I was refused entry because I am black and their "policies" [which is the reason I am given] prohibit entry to black people. I call attention to the situation by standing outside with a placard saying this restaurant treated me in a discriminatory way because I am black. The restaurant manager then comes to me and says, sorry that was a mistake caused by the 'patron classifier' [i.e. some vague entity that implies no actual person is at fault anywhere], and I can come in now.
So, do I understand correctly that you would say the restaurant is not operating any type of discriminatory policy because it reversed the decision when attention was publicly drawn to it?
To me, that reasoning does not seem to make sense. Being embarrassed into changing a decision does not stop your original decision being wrong in the first place. It simply means you want to stop attention being drawn to it and hope I will stop making a fuss if you make an exception for me on this occasion. You can continue making that same [wrong] decision for everyone else that is unable to complain and draw attention to their plight.
Yes.
> If Facebook reversed the decision, it's not censorship.
Maybe if they reversed it with a time machine.