Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

hattulanHuumeparoni t1_j0zwtn4 wrote

Reply to comment by Terkala in [D] Will there be a replacement for Machine Learning Twitter? by MrAcurite

>They're upset that Twitter won't censor the people they want to censor

Yeah pretty rich of you to complain about bad faith arguments. But since you don't mind appeals to authority, here's the wiktionary definition of cencorship

>The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression or press, such as passing laws to prevent media from being published or propagated.

How exactly does that apply to a federated protocol, where people are completely free to move to other instances, or even host them?

1

Terkala t1_j12yqa6 wrote

If you're using Wiktionary, instead of a reputable dictionary like Miriam Webster, Cambridge, or Oxford, that tells me all I need to know about the quality of your argument.

Also the constant strawman arguments, shifting topics each reply, and resorting to personal attacks in a professional subreddit. But those are things you're doing to yourself, I'm merely pointing out why I don't want to engage in discussion with you.

1

hattulanHuumeparoni t1_j131qnz wrote

>the action of preventing part or the whole of a book, film, work of art, document, or other kind of communication from being seen or made available to the public, because it is considered to be offensive or harmful, or because it contains information that someone wishes to keep secret, often for political reasons

>a system in which an authority limits the ideas that people are allowed to express and prevents books, films, works of art, documents, or other kinds of communication from being seen or made available to the public, because they include or support certain ideas:

These are from Cambridge. They don't really apply to a federated social media either: nothing is prevented to be seen, people can just choose not to see it if they want.

0