Fantastic word salad you have there, managing to avoid the entire question posed to you. Shows that you have no cogent argument, just a bunch of grievances. I’m sorry to hear of your problems.
I don’t think you know what word salad is. If you do, way to use sly accusations of mental illness to discredit, supporting their point that you can’t win an argument without cheating.
Q: How exactly was it censored, and how is it comparable to censorship in China?
A: https://nypost.com/2021/07/15/white-house-flagging-posts-for... That is censorship, because social media then bans (censors) those users and the discussion. Which was my exact point. What do they do in China: “hey this snippet here looks like misinformation” then the company removes that snippet. They extend it to insults about the Chinese race, but don’t we do the same with gender pronouns? How is it different materially?
Maybe I should remind you of the actual words in the gp comment.
> Let's take your first point for example. If I go on Fox News right now and search for articles about the 2020 election being stolen, I get plenty of articles and opinions talking about it. How exactly was it censored, and how is it comparable to censorship in China?
You have conveniently pivoted to a straw man argument about Covid-19 which was not mentioned.
And there are plenty of people on Facebook talking all sorts of crap about vaccines. If it was so stringently “censored” as you claim, it would be hard for us to argue about - as I would have never heard the anti vaxxers arguments. But good lord, they never shut up- so I’m exceptionally aware of their opinions.
You are right that he conflated two types of censorship in the West. The first is as you say, eliminate it from mainstream media and let lunatics ramble about it on social media (vaccines, lab theory, etc.). This has an impact on the legitimacy of what's being said, and your exposure to these ideas. The second type of censorship is the outright ban of certain topics, such as the Hunter Biden laptop.
This piece is from 2022. I'm talking about the time when Twitter and Facebook banned publication of the original NY Post publication, which would have affected elections. We now know the FBI demanded this of Facebook.
Look, I’m just on my phone so I’m not going to dig up archive links showing the post article all over the web at the time, but really - what do you want? The emergency broadcast system activated to push the story to everyone’s phone like an amber alert?
I was there - and honestly the news about “suppressing” the ny post story just encouraged me to go read it more, ala the Streisand effect. Which is exactly what I did out of morbid curiosity. I encountered no issues finding the story, had no issues with authorities as a result of searching for it and reading it and took no precautions to protect my identity while doing so.
I'm not even sure what your point is here. I'm telling you that the FBI ordered two major social media platforms to suppress sharing of a truthful news story for political reasons. It's also a fact that most media outlets did the same. This is state censorship, and the fact that you could go to Breitbart or whatever fringe news site, or that you personally did so, doesn't change absolutely anything about that.
1. The primary discussion was around "how was censorship related to China" and the poster gave a random example from my arbitrary list. I responded with an arbitrary example, but still giving an example how censorship is comparable to China.
2. My position has never been the government has to be doing the censorship. People censor, some in media, some in social media, some on HN, some in government, etc.
3. Censorship doesn't mean you cannot reach data; it's a suppression of speech (which Zuckerberg, Dorsey, and Youtube admitted to censoring publicly). https://www.britannica.com/topic/censorship
> censorship, the changing or the suppression or prohibition of speech or writing that is deemed subversive of the common good. It occurs in all manifestations of authority to some degree, but in modern times it has been of special importance in its relation to government and the rule of law.
> Ahead of the election, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube promised to clamp down on election misinformation, including unsubstantiated charges of fraud and premature declarations of victory by candidates. And they mostly did just that — though not without a few hiccups.
They have been open about censoring since before the election. Now, if we want to get into government, the FBI interfered by (1) strongly suggesting social media to "limit" (censor) information; and ironically (2) accused of not investigating or sharing relevant information about the candidates (https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/services/files/7CD44E16-BF...)
5. I know many people banned from social media. They can't post on any accounts. I also followed many people I didn't know personally banned. If you ask questions / discuss certain topics you will be removed; typically for sharing particular pieces of content.
