To me it is blocking expression that presents no plausible harm to anyone. Yelling fire in a crowd to start a panic, making a specific threat, and intentionally spreading lies as to defame all strike me as harmful language and should be curtailed somehow. All expression of any kind not plausibly causing harm should be allowed and equal in the market of ideas despite my personal opinion of them which is a bitter pill to swallow when neonazis appear all to common. The is my opinion.

The first time it happens, at step one.

a governmental body. private entities, whether that be people or organizations, are not bound to the concepts of censorship like a governing body with real power over the people are.

at what point does censorship became censorship

When you can’t ask at what point censorship becomes censorship without consequences.

Censorship is censorship

[Censored]

I find all the rewriting of books and remaking of movies and tv shows I used to watched as a kind because they are inclusive enough to be strange. I knowing it is not a government effort. but why is the public trying to the kids now that if they do not have a culturally diverse friend group it is something wrong. we are trying to achieve equality not make race or gender something people do not think about. sorry i know this is a bit off topic but it is I want to talk about.

I’d say if you are unfairly depriving someone of an audience that would have wanted to listen to you.

Individually blocking someone you don’t personally want to hear from obviously isn’t censorship.

But if you have a monopoly on a platform and block everyone who would be interested in listening to someone, just because of your personal preferences, that is censorship.

But if virtually no one wants to listen to something and you block it, I would argue that’s not censorship. E.g. no one should has to listen to spam or look at porn.

Of course those lines are blurry, but so is all of moral judgement.

It’s more clear cut if you ‘unrightfully’ ban someone from YouTube, since it’s a monopoly. Banning someone from lemmy.world who would have had an audience there is trickier, since ideally this would eventually lead to them and their audience moving to an instance where they are welcome.

That’s why you would want your government to protect speech, since it is the biggest and most powerful monopoly. But in my opinion the same should extend to any large institution, like social media.

And I’m talking about censorship as a moral judgement free term, since I would argue there is some good censorship. E.g. banning CSM. I don’t think it makes sense to call it anything other than it is.