Quote:
Originally Posted by 1blackman1
What do you define as censorship
|
Simple. Not allowing any view other than the one you support. Right now, Facebook and Twitter are not allowing people to discuss among themselves, views contrary to what they have decided are the correct views much less post an outright claim of what is true or not true.
To tell your readers that you may not post anything about the virus that isn't accepted by the CDC, WHO, could be considered censorship. Problem is, Facebook and Twitter are private enterprises that theoretically by law can restrict what is said on their platforms. First we have to figure out where the new line is in these matters. Traditionally, censorship is only related to the government can't restrict your speech. If we accept that Facebook and Twitter being privately owned platforms, not being government, can restrict any speech they want, that would seem to be a problem considering the amount of people whose information they are controlling.
I'm inclined to believe that Facebook and Twitter not being government entities, do have the right to censor anything they want on their platform and then the "competition" can point this out and try and steal their business with a "better mousetrap".
It's annoying as hell to see Facebook and Twitter do this but since I don't get my news from Facebook or Twitter, it has little impact on me other than annoyance. Some day soon, government will have to make some hard decisions in this new age of information. One thing seems obvious to me at this point, that is that Facebook and Twitter can not have rules different than the Times or Post which means they can be sued for the content they allow just like the Times and Post were recently sued by a teenager for slander.
Facebook and Twitter telling a citizen that they can not post what they want because what they are saying is a lie, could well be considered liable, defamation. That's also how it should be IMHO.
alternative media to avoid censorship
