No, I don't. If it's about instances I'd understand it a bit more, even though I wouldn't entirely agree with that either (I'm a free speech stan), but this is a page listing Fediverse alternative software. The software is fine and relatively untainted from the intentions of the Lemmy devs from what I can tell (although that was not originally the case). They deserved to be criticized, but not censored from Fediverse articles listing alternatives to big tech platforms.

[–] haverholm@kbin.earth 3 points 3 weeks ago (17 children)

It's not "censorship" when somebody decides to omit a software from a curated list over the developers' horrible takes. See also Soapbox.

Edited to add: Free speech does not obligate anybody to boost or acknowledge subjects that they disagree with.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 8 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments and private institutions. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship. General censorship occurs in a variety of different media, including speech, books, music, films, and other arts, the press, radio, television, and the Internet for a variety of claimed reasons including national security, to control obscenity, pornography, and hate speech, to protect children or other vulnerable groups, to promote or restrict political or religious views, and to prevent slander and libel.

Wikipedia

They are suppressing information about the fediverse based on political views. They had it up and then they took it down. Please explain how this is not censorship. I don't know where people get the idea that censorship is an inherently negative thing.

[–] haverholm@kbin.earth 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

In the encyclopedic sense, you're right. In this context that I replied to, however, censorship had a negative connotation, and my response spoke to that rather than the formal meaning.

I don't know where people get the idea that censorship is an inherently negative thing.

Right, and I do note that you talk about jointhefediverse "suppressing" Lemmy — another negative connotation.

I'll maintain that, no, they are just leaving it out. Again, that is the privilege of a list curator. Nobody else have a say in what and why is included on the site. Choosing what to publish, and the omissions that entails, are also protected by free speech.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 6 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

that is the privilege of a list curator.

It can be their privilege and also be censorship. You seem to imply otherwise.

[–] haverholm@kbin.earth 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Do I? You seem to enjoy pedantic hairsplitting, but I fail to see where you're going with this.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes you do

[–] haverholm@kbin.earth 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Good talk. Get lost.

[–] Ulrich@feddit.org 0 points 2 weeks ago

You first.

load more comments (6 replies)

load more comments (14 replies)

load more comments (17 replies)