Sharing stories is how we understand the world around us. Stories are how we interpret the past and anticipate the future.
Anyone in power who commands, "This story cannot be told," or "That book must not be read" is not just banning a book or an idea. They're trying to control what you think and how you think about it.
People often confuse someone saying, "I don't agree with that story," or even, "That story is a lie. Here's the truth,"* with censorship. But there's a difference.
There's a difference between words and actions, too. J. Average Citizen griping, "That book should be burned," is not the same as rounding up all the copies of it they can find and heaving the books into the fire. A bookstore deciding not to sell a book, a commercial website kicking out a user for bad behavior? That's not censorship.
______________________
* Sometimes it really is the truth, too. Sometimes it really, really isn't. Caveat emptor!
BUILDING A 1:1 BALUN
4 years ago
2 comments:
"A bookstore deciding not to sell a book, a commercial website kicking out a user for bad behavior? That's not censorship."
There's a big difference between booting someone for being a horse's ass and booting someone just because you don't like their perspective on politics, or any other subject.
Like it or not, the internet today is the modern-day equivalent of the public square, and needs to be treated as such, by force, if necessary.
This wasn't a problem back in the days of Usenet. Decent newsreader software had a feature where the reader was able to engage an 'ignore' function, and *poof* the reader never their comments again, or even followup comments, if desired. AKA, Drop them into the 'bit-bucket'.
*Plonk*, as it was known to the denizens of NNTP .
There is zero reason why websites cannot implement such a feature if they don't want their 'tender sensibilities' offended. No, they intend to SILENCE speech they don't like, actively keeping it from being heard, and in a country where free speech actually is supposed to be thing, it should be treated as such.
Just my 0.02, and worth every penny... :)
I published your comment so I could push back on it: it's specious, especially the claim that websites should be prevented -- by force! -- from booting users because of their politics. It's a big Internet and if you're unwelcome in one corner of it, go find another! I won't provide a forum on my blog for Nazis and communists (the real things, not the nitwit smear-use) or authoritarians of any stripe and if I am told I am *required* to, I'll just pull the plug. Orbanisists aren't welcome here.
Nor am I much interested in rubbing elbows with 'em. As Twitter becomes more and more authoritarian-friendly, my use of the site is diminishing. There's lots of other social media.
The public square is large and we're not obliged to be buddies with everyone in it. It's lined with shops, and some of them have rules, a dress code and/or a cover charge.
Usenet News was effectively a decentralized aggregator, and moderation varied considerably. The "alt" hierarchy was pretty wide-open but others were not. Nothing presently available functions that way, and Usenet itself was essentially destroyed by uncontrolled, largely commercial spam. (I'm trying to remember the various newsreader programs -- "trn" and "tin" come to mind.)
Post a Comment