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.
Everybody else in this thread seems to be clear on the meaning. But for you, here. By censorship I mean removing what you said from the conversation. Removing posts and replies.
Ha ha. What is the plan of this invisible deity?
You can see the reason cited.
In almost all cases you cannot see who did it.
Any conversation about it is, as a rule, private
Hey the mods removed my reply. I wonder what perfectly reasonable reason they'll cite.
Don't understand >> troll.
That's efficient
I heard about this big Christian from a hundred years ago who doubted the existence of time, space and physical objects. I like that guy.
Yeah, but once the power is there it will be used for less legit reasons, like removing "saying nice stuff about the wrong politician".
No really, we're good.
We're talking about removing stuff at the judgment of the presiding authority.
Rationale is infinitely flexible. It will never be science. So it cannot be relied upon.
So, ideals aside, consider it in that light. Be realistic.
You got a better one?
Well we have this upvoting/downvoting paradigm. Simple and popular. Maybe that could be developed further.
But sometimes you are wrong.
Refer to the replies of others here who are having less difficulty than you. Use the power of Lemmy.
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.
No matter what authority, rationale or interpretation cited, it comes to the judgment of the person actually pulling the trigger.
But this is obvious.
Clearly misinformation. Reported
I'm gonna take it at face value. You seem to be spinning a bit.
Maybe the power to censor could be kept out of the hands of individuals. Make it a democratic decision.
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?
Everybody else in this thread seems to be clear on the meaning. But for you, here. By censorship I mean removing what you said from the conversation. Removing posts and replies.