I don't consent to receiving spam, so I don't mind if it's censored. I also self-censor my timeline aggressively by silencing, unfollowing and blocking accounts I don't like.
I only dislike censorship when they don't ask me first.
In the government context, this problem is very aptly dealt with by distinguishing “content neutrality” from “viewpoint neutrality”. That’s why the government can punish spam emailers without violating the first amendment.
I'm sorry, please clarify. What does the 'government aspect' have to do with 'twitter removing other forms of censorship'? What is 'content neutrality' and how is it different from 'viewpoint neutrality'? How does pointing out that 'censoring' in regards to removing objectionable content by a corporation relate to the first amendment at all, and what does being 'principled' have to do with it?
Maybe this is more productive: What point were you trying to make with your spam comment? And how isn’t it addressed by twitter abiding by viewpoint neutrality but not content neutrality?
Spam Blocking = you can't say X more than Y (>> 1) times
While technically censorship, there is a big difference, I think. Obviously in practice spam blocking could maliciously or accidentally be used for censorship.
Why would Y==1 for email spam? In spam, the same message is sent many times. Entropy to try to make spam messages different is generally merely meant to. circumvent spam blockers.
Spam is not illegal. Blocking non-illegal speech is censorship. End of story. There is no argument around this. Any conditions you place on it are arbitrary and are just you saying certain things are acceptable and others are not -- which is the definition of censorship.
Genuinely trying to understand your beliefs here. When you say "Any conditions you place on it are arbitrary" does that also apply to the laws around speech themselves? For example if spam was made illegal, would it then (according to you) not be censorship to block spam?
My belief is that illegal speech is also still a form of censorship, just one that we are OK with. And that spam is more like a denial of service attack. Blocking spam is not about blocking the expression of an idea, but making sure that a communication channel is not abused as to make the channel ineffective.
I am making a point that people who decry 'free speech / no censorship' have not thought it through to its logical conclusion. By telling a private entity such as twitter to 'remove all forms of censorship' then you are asking them to open the floodgates to every form of non-illegal speech. (I note illegal for obvious reasons because you have no discretion on removing illegal speech such as CSAM, you are obligated to do it).
'Remove all censorship' means not just 'free speech I want other people to have to deal with regardless of context' but also 'free speech that annoys the fuck out of me regardless of context', which very much includes spam.
By 'any conditions you place on it are arbitrary' I am referring specifically to 'if y is greater than x then spam else not spam'. That is arbitrary; you made that up. There is no 'if repeated more than once' appended to the end of "to suppress or delete as objectionable" in merriam webster under 'censor'. If you make up a rule to suite your convenience it is arbitrary.
Got it. I agree my proposed rule is arbitrary. I also think twitter must have some form of spam prevention-- any kind of API rate limit would be by your definition be censorship also. I think you might be assuming I think twitter could or should strive to be censorship free, I don't think this is desirable or possible.
