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.
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.
Censoring this may not be the same as censoring that. We might all be fine with censoring this, but censoring that is crossing the line. It doesn’t mean that the first scenario is wrong just because the second is.
No. People often disagree on what is right and wrong. Then the stronger part will just censor the weaker part regardless of who is wrong.
Asuming a Lemmy where censorship is impossible, how would you handle illegal conversations?
spoiler
askldjfals;jflsad;
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?
spoiler
askldjfals;jflsad;
Refer to the replies of others here who are having less difficulty than you. Use the power of Lemmy.
spoiler
askldjfals;jflsad;
Don’t understand >> troll.
That’s efficient
spoiler
askldjfals;jflsad;
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.
spoiler
askldjfals;jflsad;
You got a better one?
spoiler
askldjfals;jflsad;
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”.
I’d call that crossing the line.
Censoring this may not be the same as censoring that. We might all be fine with censoring this, but censoring that is crossing the line. It doesn’t mean that the first scenario is wrong just because the second is.