1·
2 months agoThat doesn’t change the aspect of it being censorship. It just means that a risk adverse company is risk adverse to the degree that they will employ censorship to maintain that aversion to risk. At the end of the day, it’s censorship. The rationale for why they’ve employed it is notwithstanding.
Your example is people randomly sharing information. That is not the same as a Government entity after following the process outlined in the law, releasing information related to that Government action. We know who is awarded contracts, we know where tax payer money is going to, and so on because of disclosure requirements by Government entities.
When an elected entity has acted in a manner accordance to law, that action ought to reasonably disclose the subject of that action. That’s not to say 100% it always must be this way, but this is why we allow the public to comment on changes to those disclosure requirements.
I would like for you to understand, there’s a very fundamental difference between “random people” and “people via a method given power to rule over other people.” That fundamental difference between the two is key to the point here.