Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
No. There is no threat of violence, and the moderated are still able to make their statements on other, equally-federated platforms.
Lol oh so you're definitely unfamiliar with Hexbear then, threatening violence is one of their favorites.
Regardless, where in definition 1b is violence even mentioned? Actually, nowhere in any of those definitions mentions violence, closest you get is "repression," which can be violent, but isn't by definition, it can be done through other means like propaganda and censorship. Furthermore there's no threat of violence on much censorship, be it corporate, self, or govenment censorship. Sometimes there is sure but often it's something as simple as not wanting to lose your job (corporate) or be ostracized (self), or a simple fine (government). If the FCC catches you saying no-no words on the radio they don't threaten your life, they threaten to fine you or suspend/remove your license, if you show Janet Jackson's titty on television you and Janet don't get tortured, CBS gets fined $550,000.
And those censored by nation-states are often still able to make their statements in other nation-states, but they've still been censored.
Now who's being semantic? But, ok, I'll give you a couple of notes.
"There's not necessarily a threat of violence!" Of course there is. In the US, it's called "police brutality." In other countries, you get disappeared or have an "accident." Hexbear can make those threats, and they should probably be defederated for them, but they don't necessarily have the power to carry them out. A police state by definition does.
"If you're censored in one country you can still say that stuff in another country!" Sure, if you aren't thrown in prison. And if you're legally allowed to leave the country. And if you've got the financial means to do so. And if the country you go to doesn't have an extradition treaty. And all that assumes you even survive the initial censoring.
Anyway, you're trying to draw an incredibly spurious connection that isn't merited. "Not having a Nazi bar is bad, actually, because then you can't have an anti-Nazi bar!"
~~Well you wanted to play the game don't get mad when I start playing too.~~ I mean "It's not semantic."
So you're telling me, that in the wake of Janet Jackson's titty, CBS/Viacom received or was threatened with police brutality in the form of $550,000 (a small percentage of their yearly revenue)? You think that a large corporation being fined for showing a titty is "police brutality?" That kinda minimizes actual police brutality but go off I guess.
Or that same titty that cost Viacom $550,000 could legally be broadcast in France because they don't have as draconian of tv titty laws like we do, and nobody was threatened with prison time or killed, they were fined. It's not always violence, despite your refusal to accept that you're wrong.
"Anyway, nuh uh," I'm arguing that just because you're ~~censored~~ moderated on lemmy it isn't "because you're right wing" as you suggest, it's more likely because you said something a tankie didn't like. I'm also having fun with the semantics of moderated vs censored but you started that, and the semantics of repression vs violence because you opened it up to that continuation by misconstruing the two, but mainly I'm refuting the former assertion that "they deserved it just because ~~of what they were wearing~~ they must be right wing if an all knowing admin got angwy at them."
These equivalences and wild bad faith arguments and accusations are getting really old. Sure, Viacom getting fined 1/1,000,000,000,000 of their annual revenue is totally the thing I was worried about, definitely. Yep.
Anyway, you go ahead and have a great time believing that you getting banned from lemmygrad for being a jerk (or at least while being a jerk) is exactly the same thing as a political dissident in Russia getting poisoned for speaking out against Putin. You're such a hero. How do you do it.
But by your definition, it is censorship, as it was a government doing it, and it was done without violence, so censorship doesn't need to be violent to be censorship, just repressive, and tankies are repressing the word of dissenters to their favored states (either under the active direction of those states or through propaganda, or by their own free will), meaning their "moderation" is at least only semantically different from censorship (or isn't different at all, if the state is sufficiently involved for you.)
And it still doesn't mean that anyone who gets censored by them is right wing.
There are not only two categories for things. Possible categories are not just "moderation" and "censorship."
The distinction is meaningless.
Nonetheless, it seems that my main point has been made, we might just have to agree to disagree on the semantic point.