Can blocking various tlds considered as censorship by restricing a user by saying whatever tlds they must on their domain related to blog or a lemmy instance ? Is defining a specific set of tlds as abusive accurate as anyone have the right to choose whichever tld they wanna use ?
Decisions have consequences. Unfortunately some bad actors prefer certain TLDs because they’re easy to get and inexpensive. If you choose to also pursue one of those TLDs it’s lamentable but you’re kind of throwing your head into the same ring.
Censorship is blocking TLDs because you don’t like what they’re saying. Blocking TLDs because they’re mostly used by bad actors is just good threat assessment.
Yes, it’s censorship. But censorship isn’t inherently bad or wrong. Go join an LGBTQ community, and start saying trans slurs. Go to a group for renewable energy discussion, and start talking about how great diesel trucks are. You would be banned, and rightly so, because censorship (aka. moderation) is necessary to protect the group from bad actors.
What becomes problematic is when those with vast amounts of power get to decide what everyone is allowed to say for considerations other than group safety or topical relevance. What people usually mean when they say “censorship” is “moderation without reasonable justification.” Folks like Musk routinely censor anyone who’s critical of his ideals, his friends, or holds beliefs counter to his own.
So as you consider censorship, you need to keep in mind that there’s reasonable and unreasonable censorship, and it’s up to you to decide where that line is and recognize the potential baggage that line (or lack) comes with.
Lack of censorship ≠ less harm.
I prefer this distinction: https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/moderation-is-different-from-censorship
A very good distinction, and a better way of saying what I said. I might have to amend my rhetoric.
Censorship isn’t bad in itself. It’s a necessary evil just like imprisoning someone who imprisons others. Both are removing freedom, but one was for the benefit of an individual and the other is for the benefit of everyone else in the society. Regulation of freedoms is always necessary.
Problem is these days the far-right tries to say all regulation is too costly. But if one innocent person loses their rights compared to millions of innocent people losing their lives, its a big difference. Similarly, someone abusing their right to speak losing their right is not the same as someone using their right to speak responsibly, losing it.
There is a huge difference between freedom and freedumb. Unfortunately, especially in the US, people just don’t seem to be able to grasp that concept.
Depends on who does it and why.
The US government blocking access to .ca by US citizens? Yeah, that’s censorship.
Your ISP blocking access to .su domains? Nope.
A web server blocking access to .br domains? Again, no.
Why no for isp and web server ?
Censorship is when the government blocks otherwise free speech.
Thank you for being intelligent.
Censorship in most people’s contextual usage of it is Government censorship or protection from Government censorship–which is the only protection we have afforded to us by the Constitution.
For example you can be censored by your employer completely legally. They can tell you that you’re not allowed to say certain things and if you do you can be fired for those things completely legally. You still have the right to say them but you’re not free of consequence if you do.
The Government does not have the same right unless it deals with non-protected speech, like hate speech.
Censorship in all the dictionaries I see don’t require it to be a government that is censoring for it to be called “censorship”.
Someone attempting to hinder someone else’s ability to reach certain information is engaging in censorship.
The discrepancy is because you looked up the noun, censorship. The censorship being referred to here is a legally defined term which is when the Government censors information;
The term censorship derives from the official duties of the Roman censor who, beginning in 443 b.c., conducted the census by counting, assessing, and evaluating the populace. Originally neutral in tone, the term has come to mean the suppression of ideas or images by the government or others with authority.
Look up censorship in a law dictionary and you’ll see the difference.
The only type of censorship that you have protection from is from the government. For example your employer can censor you completely legally. They can tell you that you’re not allowed to say certain things and if you do you can lose your job. All of that is perfectly legal. If the government does the same thing it’s illegal.
That’s the difference. Casual censorship versus Governmental censorship.
The censorship being referred to here is a legally defined term…
There is no such mention by OP about the legal definition.
There is no such mention by OP about the legal definition.
It’s contextual. It doesn’t have to be pointed out. If you’re talking about censorship, specifically censorship when dealing with your rights or government in general, then you’re speaking about the legal definition. Speaking about your job censoring you? The noun.
