One aspect of the "moderation is censorship" debate that I haven't seen discussed is that a lot of the time, what we're looking at is a campaign of targeted harassment against somebody. And then if they are blocked, the person doing the harassment will complain about censorship or sometimes "cancel culture".
But, the whole point of a harassment campaign is to silence someone- to intimidate or bully them until they shut up. What is that if not censorship by other means?
What I'm saying is that sometimes one person's freedom of expression has to be limited in order to protect the freedom of expression of someone else. And there's a balance to be struck there.
But the point is: there is no neutral position here. If you refuse to make a decision about when free expression become unacceptable harassment, you are still making a decision: you are saying that the person with the worst behavior will be the only one whose voice can be heard.
The same thing happens in the outside world, of course: deregulation, for example, does not generally bring freedom, it only shifts the power to whoever has the most money. The principle is the same. You either collectively make a decision about what behavior is tolerable, or you allow the person with the biggest stick to make all the rules. There is no opting out of the decision.
But, the whole point of a harassment campaign is to silence someone- to intimidate or bully them until they shut up. What is that if not censorship by other means?
What I'm saying is that sometimes one person's freedom of expression has to be limited in order to protect the freedom of expression of someone else. And there's a balance to be struck there.
But the point is: there is no neutral position here. If you refuse to make a decision about when free expression become unacceptable harassment, you are still making a decision: you are saying that the person with the worst behavior will be the only one whose voice can be heard.
The same thing happens in the outside world, of course: deregulation, for example, does not generally bring freedom, it only shifts the power to whoever has the most money. The principle is the same. You either collectively make a decision about what behavior is tolerable, or you allow the person with the biggest stick to make all the rules. There is no opting out of the decision.