There's a difference between content moderation and censorship. Not to mention shaping user experience.
For example, If a site has a mechanism where after X number of downvotes by users, your comment is hidden, that's not censorship.
You've spoken your piece, and other users voted on if they liked your comment or not, or if it contributed to the conversation or provided useful information, etc.
Those other things you mentioned, you do so without context. No social media site can function and be a useful and valuable place to visit without some form of content moderation.
The distinction lies in where the line is drawn. Can you (constructively) criticize the site mods or parent company? Speak your own views in a reasonable discussion that don't cross the line (calls for violence, unintelligible ranting, trolling)?
> There's a difference between content moderation and censorship.
Not at all. Whenever some individuals posts ONE piece of content that's not acceptable for some obscure non-written reason, the censorship hammer falls on the whole profile/account of said person, thereby removing all historical acceptable communication as well.
If it was really different, you would ONLY censor the problematic piece of content, not everything back to the roots of history.
I mean, that's should be a reasonable understanding for most people. Sure, there are companies out there I don't support because I don't like what they do. But there are others with opinions I disagree with, but I still patronize them.
And its important to recognize that the stores I refuse to patronize, and those I do that hold views I dislike, are probably not given the same distinctions by others, even those with ideals like mine.
But the core point should be we can have a calm, rational discussion on it, and leave with the understanding that your thoughts and views are not 100% my thoughts and views, and that's ok as long as neither of us hold views promoting violence or hatred.
I've never met a person in my life I 100% agreed with about everything. Not my mom, not my dad, not my sister, or my wife .
Talking and finding commonality is more important and necessary than finding reasons to dislike each other.
Completely agree on all counts. But what I have seen change, overall, is that there is now a trend that these differences of opinion are no longer respected and now generate offense and in more severe cases attempts at retribution. I understand this is totally me generalizing and completely from my observations and not necessarily empirical evidence of anything, but i find it concerning nonetheless.
First, I don't know of any "brain damage"; and second, yes, it can result in brain damage. Simplest way, by inducing insomnia, but there are many others.
But a psycological cause wouldnt result in the damage found on the victims, right?
Didn't one doctor who examined some of these people describe damage that looked like "a concussion without a concussion"? I.e. damage to the brain you'd see on people who had conxussions, but they experienced no physical trauma?
>But a psycological cause wouldnt result in the damage found on the victims, right?
A psychological cause absolutely could have physical effects. It'd be really hard to develop an ethical experiment to test if these specific injuries could have a psychological cause, but other damage has had such a cause.
Also, like two people had concussion like brain scans without knowing they had a concussion. They could have just unknowingly had a concussion, it's not like they had brain scans before and after the "attack" to compare.
This would have been part of the evidence the panel ruled could fit a psychological cause anyway.
Lying? You mean changing their understanding of something new as more information becomes available? That's how science works they use the best info available, and change their understanding as more info becomes available.
They didn't change their understanding with new information, they asserted with 100% confidence that the lab leak idea was a ridiculous conspiracy theory, back when there was simply no intellectual justification for that assertion whatsoever, whilst lying (yes, lying) in their conflict of interest statement about their actual conflicts of interest. The man who coordinated it all refused to sign his own "open letter" to avoid arousing suspicion!
Even today, in their newest letter, they are still trying to obfuscate the real situation and are certainly not apologizing for their prior stance.
At any rate, this claim that scientists are never dishonest or wrong, they just "update their beliefs" as more information becomes available, is getting very tedious. That's not what they're doing. "Science" is constantly bombarding our political leaders with wildly extreme statements delivered not just with 100% confidence, but the assertion that you aren't even allowed to disagree because it's a "scientific consensus". People read the papers and point out that they're making false assumptions or are otherwise pseudo-scientific, but they're suppressed and ignoring. Then when that "consensus" turns out to have been completely wrong a bunch of apologists appear to explain that scientists can never be wrong by definition.
Well, guess what? If a certain type of person constantly make confident statements as a group and insists reasoned disagreement is illegitimate, then is repeatedly proven to be wrong, all their statements become seen as less reliable. As a group.
