If major platforms de-platform you, in a co-ordinated fashion that's not censorship?
This is all works on account of corporate policies - not law. Law would dictate that unless what was said was illegal, that a person had a right to say it.
Which is supportive of the fact that we are living in a fascist (corporate + governance) system. That the legal system is now a joke.
> If major platforms de-platform you, in a co-ordinated fashion that's not censorship?
Not in a world where you can continue to post on Infowars or 4chan or reddit or HN or wherever instead, no. Why would it be? You really don't see the difference? In Russia, it is illegal to report on international perspectives about events in Ukraine. That content doesn't exist, and you can't link to it without committing a crime (and, likely, also using a ban evasion tool like a VPN).
Do you have an example of an idea or perspective (even one!) that is being suppressed by "major platforms" in a "co-ordinated fashion" that I won't be able to refute with a simple link as I did above?
Yes, you can have a website and your own voice. But if you are being excluded from public platforms - not because you are doing anything illegal, but because a majority or even just the owner doesn't like your opinion - this is a genuine problem. You will live in an echo chamber.
These are legal issues and there is legal framework already in existence to prevent illegal acts. Shops cannot refuse service to the public. But an online public platform - eg Twitter - is able to refuse. The ability to refer to a terms of service document that can justify stopping your usage of a public platform when a person has done nothing wrong, should not be legal. That you can be silenced can interpreted as a political act, eg Trump. You might agree with the political slant (but then how would you even hear about alternative views?).
I really don't get how you can think or argue that voices are not being censored in the public domain.
> if you are being excluded from public platforms [then] this is a genuine problem
Maybe. But it's not "censorship" as commonly understood in a historical context. And it's absolutely not, in even the remotest sense, comparable in severity or impact to the kind of criminalization of discourse that is happening in Russia right now. And any attempt to conflate the two is just ridiculously inappropriate.
If major platforms de-platform you, in a co-ordinated fashion that's not censorship?
This is all works on account of corporate policies - not law. Law would dictate that unless what was said was illegal, that a person had a right to say it.
Which is supportive of the fact that we are living in a fascist (corporate + governance) system. That the legal system is now a joke.