Well now we are - discussing a much more specific scenario and not just any scenario where someone is seen as wrong by someone else as in the original question.
Anyway, the owner of any private publishing platform must be allowed to choose what they publish or rules for publishing. If it is “censorship” that publishers cannot be forced by any and all to publish illegal content then yeah, that form of “censorship” is entirely justifiable.
That’s not being right or wrong. That’s “as an instance admin/community mod I don’t want the feds knocking on my door” (as a resident of eagle land. Pick your LEO of choice elsewhere).
Prosecution might then assert that it was your responsibility to employ a system that DID allow for censorship. But I hate that one.
Another option would be to refer the offender to the LEOs. Just shift responsibility. Heck, it could be said that you’re doing the LEOs a service. I like that one.
Dude I legitimately can’t follow what you’re trying to say or accomplish here. You’re not giving us any context and now you’re putting forth some argument as if it’s been the point the whole time, but it’s the first you’ve made it. Can you just explain what you’re on about? Clearly you’re trying to litigate something that happened.
I think it’s time for a block. Have a good one dude. Could’ve had an interesting discussion but you’re just being Republican weird, not the fun kind of weird
Asuming a Lemmy where censorship is impossible, how would you handle illegal conversations?
Well now we are - discussing a much more specific scenario and not just any scenario where someone is seen as wrong by someone else as in the original question.
Anyway, the owner of any private publishing platform must be allowed to choose what they publish or rules for publishing. If it is “censorship” that publishers cannot be forced by any and all to publish illegal content then yeah, that form of “censorship” is entirely justifiable.
Yeah, but once the power is there it will be used for less legit reasons, like removing “saying nice stuff about the wrong politician”.
That’s not being right or wrong. That’s “as an instance admin/community mod I don’t want the feds knocking on my door” (as a resident of eagle land. Pick your LEO of choice elsewhere).
Yeah, but that doesn’t answer the question.
The best way to stop censorship is to make it impossible. So, if censorship is impossible, how would you handle illegal conversations?
If it’s impossible to censor people, you would hardly have a strong prosecution arguing you should have done something impossible.
That’s a good point.
Prosecution might then assert that it was your responsibility to employ a system that DID allow for censorship. But I hate that one.
Another option would be to refer the offender to the LEOs. Just shift responsibility. Heck, it could be said that you’re doing the LEOs a service. I like that one.
We don’t call cops in this house
You got a better one?
Yeah. Don’t call the cops, remove the illegal content, ban the user. Simple as that
Dude I legitimately can’t follow what you’re trying to say or accomplish here. You’re not giving us any context and now you’re putting forth some argument as if it’s been the point the whole time, but it’s the first you’ve made it. Can you just explain what you’re on about? Clearly you’re trying to litigate something that happened.
Refer to the replies of others here who are having less difficulty than you. Use the power of Lemmy.
Now I’m starting to think you’re just being a troll
Don’t understand >> troll.
That’s efficient
I think it’s time for a block. Have a good one dude. Could’ve had an interesting discussion but you’re just being Republican weird, not the fun kind of weird