>>13014>Censorship is governments blocking websites and sending people to jail over posts on social media.I actually agree with you generally about monopolies and there being a role for government here. But you have a strange definition of "censorship" if you think only the government can be engaged in it. There's this weird idea I see online sometimes that there's nothing conceptually or morally wrong with censorship as long as the government isn't doing it, which I definitely don't agree with. I think if people took a minute to think about why it's a good thing the government can't decide what you can say, they would agree that it's probably good for private entities to err on the side of not doing the same.
>Apple's privately owned service deciding not to platform certain apps is not that. Neither is Twitter banning you for posting racial slurs.Those are both definitely still censorship. The question is how much is an acceptable or socially useful amount. I think that many times it's perfectly reasonable to be banning foul language, pornography, outright lies, etc. But people nowadays are a little too gung-ho about restricting things as a way to solve problems.
>>13023>Social media platforms are more like public infrustructure than like a product you buy.I'm actually coming around to this argument. It's silly to pretend like these platforms are "just another private service" when it's effectively impossible to run a business or a political campaign without the use of Twitter, Google, Facebook, etc.
