Re:How Signal Walks the Line Between Anarchism and Pragmatism
by komali2 on Monday July 24, 2023 @11:00PM
(#36857317)
The only time I hear this is when people refer to it. I've yet to find examples of it myself, bearing in mind that companies choosing what can and can't be said on their platforms doesn't constitute censorship (unless we're willing to admit that platforms have a monopoly on public communication).
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:How Signal Walks the Line Between Anarchism and Pragmatism
by mc32 on Monday July 24, 2023 @11:01PM
(#36857327)
When you have Federal embeds counselling companies on content, that's essentially censorship. I don't know what else you'd call it.
That's banana republic level technique and tactics. This is something a Francisco Franco might have done. No, no, we don't have censors, we're just making sure only the truth of the moment is published. And of course, blackhole all the contradictions.
Re:How Signal Walks the Line Between Anarchism and Pragmatism
by komali2 on Tuesday July 25, 2023 @12:20AM
(#36857844)
> only the truth of the moment is published
What other truths are you struggling to publish? What contradictions do you have that you're unable to display anywhere?
> Federal embeds counselling companies on content
What's this? I haven't heard about it.
Re:How Signal Walks the Line Between Anarchism and Pragmatism
by kelnos on Tuesday July 25, 2023 @04:48AM
(#36859668)
It absolutely is censorship. Whether or not that censorship is illegal depends on who is doing the censorship. But the act of suppressing speech is censorship, no matter who does it.