Self censorship

It's bloody hilarious that people are attempting to censor others by claiming things are off-topic and then refusing to engage in the conversation when they chime in.

I think Darthmongoose gave some great examples that discuss the nuances of self-censorship and the power our works have in the world. You have to be responsible with what themes and messages you put across, and if you're an asshole that doesn't care and claims that freedom of speech allows you to say anything you like, then I'd like to direct you to a lot of legal laws around defamation and libel.

Before I peace out I'd like to confirm one thing.

JK ROWLING IS A TERF. Thank you for coming to my ted talk. Have a blessed day all.

I also stand my my initial response: 99%^ of these cases could've just been dealt with via content warnings

Want to make a tweet explaining why you think gender = sex? Sure, do that - just tag it with (cw: gender critical) so people can ignore it if they want to.

Want to write a book about your experience as a pedophilie? Sure, do that - just tag it with (cw: pedophilia) so people can ignore it if they need to.

In so many of these cases, there's no good reason to prevent the information from existing. All the harms could be dealt with via a simple warning. Am I missing something or is it really not that complicated?

It's annoying, but I don't think that constitutes censorship - claiming something is off-topic or not engaging doesn't prevent the other person's argument from existing, and they're not stopping them from making a new topic where they can discuss the off-topic stuff.

For instance, calling out 'whataboutism' is essentially just claiming that something is off-topic. If, for instance you're talking about women's issues and someone comes in and are all like 'but men have it hard too', telling them to take that discussion elsewhere isn't saying they should shut up about men's issues or that they're not important - only that it's not what you're talking about right now, in this space.

For another example, I once discussed the merits of IP with @RobertBMarks and he ended the thread essentially saying I shouldn't have brought up my anti-IP ideas into that thread because it was off-topic.3 I was salty about it and was tempted to call him out on hypocrisy when he expressed an anti-self-censorship stance in this thread, but it would've been wrong of me to do so since he technically didn't ask me to self-censor - he just said I was 'hijacking' the thread we were discussing in and he probably wouldn't have minded if I made my own thread talking about my beliefs.

(Since there's plenty of salt in this thread already, figured it couldn't hurt to add my own two grams onto the pile :'D Besides, Robert has muted the thread already so it's not like he's gonna see this XD

And incidentally, as much as I've got a bone to pick with the guy, I can't help but notice that as soon as he brought up J.K Rowling^^, everyone focused on that part of his comment instead of the actual core of his argument:

I honestly want to know what pro self-censorship people's solution to this is, if they think some things should never be said. (Again, my solution is that everything should be allowed to be said - just some things should be tagged with a content warning.))

^ again, jokes are a difficult area, but stories and opinion pieces are 100% amenable to content warnings

^^ Just for the record, I'm not in camp 'Rowling did nothing wrong' - I'm in camp 'Rowling was wrong but allowing her to be wrong is a necessary consequence of a free society, and if she tags her incorrect speech, that already eliminates 99% of the negative consequences of her saying those wrong things'

If you look at the op's quote it is about how we censor ourselves online, it's not about censoring our work, it was about social media. And I ask of you: Whomst among us posts who we really are and what our real complete opinions are online?????

whomst?

Twitter doesn't give us enough characters to do that, it's not possible if we tried, so we must censor ourselves constantly because there's no room to properly discuss and defend your position. So the best model is to just never get in a fight.

And in that context, it changes what censorship even means in regard to our online works. That isn't self-censorship at all, that is just desperately trying to fit our works into a mold our audience can easily digest so the algorithm will prop us up. Is that story too spicy for tapas? That's just the tapas company/audience telling you what to do, isn't it? That isn't even about the ethics of what you're writing, that's just trying to be as appealing as possible and trying to remain on a site that is also on the Apple store.

I personally think you can only self-censor if your works aren't on the internet, and what 'can' exist and 'should' exist on the internet is constantly evolving.

I don't censor anything I do because it's just frustrating keeping track of things you can and can't do.
Of course, if it is a topic that can be controversial, I still have the option not to talk about it. Avoiding certain things can save so much brain cells.

About censorship itself, that's how I interpret it:

Censorship is when someone slams a big heavy bag of coins into your nutsack.
Now, self-censorship would be if you slammed a big heavy bag of coins into your nutsack.
You wouldn't want to do that. Right?
(If you still say yes: Aren't you a little kinky fellow.)

Screenshot_20221009-192850_Free Adblocker Browser.jpg1079x806 223 KB

I am very anti-censorship, but I have done some self-censorship within certain parameters. The parameter being that it must be available uncensored somewhere. So for my comic if a character is nude for example, on sites where it's free-to-read, I will censor it and then make the uncensored version available on Patreon. So this helps keep inline with the host platform's rules and allows the uncensored version to be rewards for my patrons.

I have also done a very little of toning things down a bit in my comic. But I consider it very minor stuff.

I've been watching this thread from afar just but with regards to this point specifically i think it can tie in when you take into account the amount of self censorship an individual puts into a work especially with regards to representations or inclusion of certain things

people from marginalized backgrounds and especially those with intesectional identities i think tend to be more inclined towards self censorship given the way they're likely used to seeing themselves negatively represented in a body of work in one form or another whether it's blatant misinformation, negative stereotyping, harmful bigoted opinions and so on. So in that regard theirs much more inclination to take care in what's put out and how things are phrased, formatted, etc

meanwhile there are those outside those labels (cishet white men as was mentioned) who at least from an outsider point of view but still through observation of the way things are handled in the things they produce tend to reflect a lot less of this kind of care. I WANT TO POINT OUT THIS DOESN'T MEAN EVERY CISHET WHITE MALE DOES THIS or that such generalization is fair but you can absolutely spot those who didn't bother to do their research or simply didn't care to and interviews sometimes are really good for exposing these mindsets; hence i imagine the mention of ego as those kinds of folks may see themselves as being above a need to do any kind of research because it's their "grand creative imagination" and doing so would "hinder them" or something of the like

also going back there's a different kind of standards that marginalized folks are held to as opposed to non marginalized folks where there's an expectation (or it's unsurprising) for cis white dudes to bastardize cultures or misrepresent identities and so on but there's a much higher expectation and trust for the rest because obviously they should care being one who falls within xyz demographic. which isn't to say folks from marginalized identities don't make fuck ups of their own but the bar is set much higher i think hence why there's a stronger sense of this self imposed need for self censorship otherwise you're "failing" these people

personally i think everyone should be held to a certain standard when it comes to what they put in their work and if they insist on a certain thing then warn folks ahead of time so they can avoid whatever material or content that they would find distasteful. like on the barest most basic level it's common decency to not be a piece of shit but that doesn't mean people wont go out and be one anyways. so when you're someone looking to have a large platform (or if you have one already) there's also a level of responsibility there when it comes to what you put out because you've got a reputation and you have influence so dragging back the trans topic one more time when jkr says things that can get trans people killed it's a problem hence the backlash and a need for self censorship. (is she gonna do it probably not but the point still stands per that example)

i think what someone else said about things like self awareness and self censorship being a layered issue is why there's this VAST array of replies covering a broad range of topics because there's the very bare minimum of choosing whether or not to say something versus a more long term of putting something in a piece of media that will continue to live on in whatever place, be consumed by others and have some form of impact based on the content and what decisions the creator behind it made

like even the mention of propaganda technically applies because yeah it had/has intents but that's the thing. self censorship is also tied to intent "what do you intend to say, whats your point, what do you mean by xyz" because intent, research and internal though is what drives decision making alongside like 50billion other things but you get my point)

[this also dragged on way longer than i intended and i only care so much for discussion on this platform because the way some folks here react or respond to things but that's as best as i can phrase my thoughts for right now :/]

[[also this is in no way some targeted response but just addressing points i feel are relevant to the topic and the whole "what do cis white dudes or race/sexuality/gender have to do with anything" replies because imo it does tie in it's just one of those fuzzy points in the broader topic that this happens to be]]