@FLOOF@sh.itjust.works to Ask Lemmy@lemmy.world • edit-21 month agoIs censorship ok if the person you're censoring is wrong?message-square44arrow-up113
arrow-up113message-squareIs censorship ok if the person you're censoring is wrong?@FLOOF@sh.itjust.works to Ask Lemmy@lemmy.world • edit-21 month agomessage-square44
minus-squaredefunct_punklinkfedilinkEnglish8•1 month agoNo. The wrong person should be debated openly IMO
minus-square@FLOOF@sh.itjust.worksOPlinkfedilink2•edit-21 month agoIn Reddit and Lemmy the names of the censors are hidden, and the debate is hidden too. I don’t know how they do it on X and Facebook.
minus-square@Blisterexe@lemmy.ziplinkfedilink1•1 month agoIf a post or comment is removed on lemmy you can see the removed content and who removed it in the modlog
minus-square@FLOOF@sh.itjust.worksOPlinkfedilink1•1 month agoYou can see the reason cited. In almost all cases you cannot see who did it. Any conversation about it is, as a rule, private
minus-square@stinky@redlemmy.comlinkfedilinkEnglish2•1 month agosome debates are harmful. fox news often has “debates” which are staged performances. the debate isn’t important, the honesty is.
minus-square@stinky@redlemmy.comlinkfedilinkEnglish1•1 month agoyour definition is arbitrary, which makes it meaningless.
No. The wrong person should be debated openly IMO
In Reddit and Lemmy the names of the censors are hidden, and the debate is hidden too.
I don’t know how they do it on X and Facebook.
If a post or comment is removed on lemmy you can see the removed content and who removed it in the modlog
You can see the reason cited.
In almost all cases you cannot see who did it.
Any conversation about it is, as a rule, private
some debates are harmful. fox news often has “debates” which are staged performances. the debate isn’t important, the honesty is.
See: “openly”
your definition is arbitrary, which makes it meaningless.