+3 votes
in Websites by (3.8k points)

Some social networks I use (minds.com and gab.ai) claim that they do not censor. I also find that Facebook and Twitter delete some accounts who promote some political ideas.

8 Answers


Not 100%, but I think they mostly permit free speech.

Nevertheless, I certainly have seen some cases where moderators censored comments for no reason other than bias on the moderators' parts.


Not entirely!

In any case, free speech should not be confused with hate speech, false accusations and the spreading of insults.

TheOtherTink Marianne

@ Marianne,

Perhaps, but sometimes perfectly true but politically incorrect speech is branded as hate speech in some quarters.

Marianne Marianne


Of course, as soon as "religious", economic, ecological and legal matters are involved, "politically incorrect" or direct speech is rather disturbing for authoritarian leaders and their accomplices - or sponsors.

But among these dumb (and dumped) masses, who is really "simple-minded" ?


TheOtherTink Marianne

@ Marianne:

Often it's not just the leaders (who secretly know better), but the brainwashed masses who brand frank and true speech as racist, sexist, etc.  At many American universities there are incidents of speakers not permitted to have their say because it goes against the Party Line.

Marianne Marianne

Yes, we heard a lot about American universities, lately, and their more or less secret fraternities, sororities and various student organisations:



And many compromising "events" remain often unreported, so as to protect the reputation of universities and other educational institutions. The past and present policies support(ed) big and fast profit systems involving overexploitation ...

And speaking of "brainwashed" or radicalised masses, you will find them in various extremist groups pretending to support the main parties.

Virginia Marianne

Your very last comment, Marianne...the extremist groups...I had not thought of it that way, that really brings the concept out!

Marianne Marianne

Thank you, Virginia, for noting my last remark.

In many cases, protesters are discredited by hate preachers or propagandists, vandals and criminal gangs causing disorder and violence.

Virginia Marianne

Read and ty, Marianne.

Marianne Marianne

You're welcome, Virginia. :)


Geez Goranko. isn't it about time to get a girlfriend or whatever and go outside and enjoy real life? Social media is boring after a while. Get out there and live!


No...No site is truly free speech. The first give away is if there is a TOS or Code of Conduct.  It's a bit laughable that some people believe sites like FB and Twitter are obligated to grant unrestricted commentary as these are NOT government agencies. They are run by corporations or private entities. They do not have to let you say squat if they choose to.  Like it or not

TheOtherTink JakGoatJumper

Of course private entities like FB don't have to permit free speech.

But if they are too biased, many of their users will vote with their feet, as well they should.

Every site has to Censor at some point when it's deemed absolutely necessary.
TheOtherTink NoLongerHere

Certainly, Ser.

Reasonable censorship of, say, calling another user a sh*thead or making death threats is one thing, but censorship because of political views quite another.

NoLongerHere NoLongerHere

@ Tink  

I totally agree babe and that is why I told Am's months back when it comes to Political debate 

"If you can dish it out , you can sure as Hell take it without me having to intervene" 

I was sick of the false flags by both sides going up every day , so I had to say something.

Thankfully it worked because I gave them 2 choices.

We could start quashing Political opinions from both sides (by the request of members) which would of led to heavy censorship or they could just toughen the Hell up. 

TheOtherTink NoLongerHere
And  right you were, Ser.  :)

@ Synyster:  I must have missed something there, Marky.  Are you talking about Tiffanee?  You can mention "her" name here. :)

@ Synyster: Indeed it seems they don't.  :ermm:


Hi Kninjanin,

I actually looked up the dictionary meaning of censor...and it's quite broad...

"...to scrutinize, revise, or cut unacceptable parts (from a book, movie, letter, newspaper, etc.)"

Everybody has their own idea of what unacceptable means...actually, maybe that is one of the lessons we really face on the Internet; censorship is deeper than some authoritarian board of some kind, it is something we all do based on our personal experience of acceptability...

I certainly do it; there are some things I just do not want to be part of my life, taking up my time...so I do choose with some care, especially as I get older...I want to choose how to spend my time. 

* * *

*btw, I learned from the dictionary that the word Censor (at least as it is used in psychoanalysis) was coined by Sigmund Freud as Zensur!

TheOtherTink Virginia

@ Virginia:

Undoubtedly there are things we censor personally, things we want nothing to do with, but in the restricted meaning, we are talking about unjustified censorship of what others may say in public, as we are seeing in many universities (of all places! ) today, often backed up by violence or threats thereof.

Virginia Virginia

Hi OtherTink...yes...I did take a limited perspective in my answer. But still, and I played parts of the video twice, what (I think) you are seeing there is a quick decision, maybe not well thought through, based more on minimizing violence? 

That is, UC Berkeley would have proceeded with Coulter's presentation, it was stopped because of the violence rather than censorship as such?

I am not saying that was a good decision, rather more that censorship does not seem to be the reason for the decision...at least as it appears from this clip...did I miss your point?

TheOtherTink Virginia

@ Virginia:

Yes, fear of violence was the excuse, but violence could have been prevented if the university and city authorities had wanted to. Their inaction showed where their true feelings lie.

And notice the false impression the NBC clip gives about the violence "between the extreme left and right," as if both sides were equally to blame. The threat and execution of violence came FIRST from the left, when they shut down speakers they didn't agree with. I haven't heard of any right wing extremists shutting down liberal speakers at universities, have you?

Virginia Virginia

+ OtherTink, Hmmm...your comment would indicate the left-wing radicals DID accomplish their goal, which may have been to censor Ann Coulter. 

Okay; the next question that comes to mind would be addressed to the UC Berkeley officials: If they were truly interested in providing a platform for a "conservative firebrand," as she was called on the newsclip, then why did they not anticipate the possibility of violence? And take appropriate measures beforehand? Even when I was in SF 1967-69, Berkeley was in turmoil and calling in the National Guard...and even then, had already been like that for decades.

TheOtherTink Virginia

@ Virginia:

Yes, and in the 60s, it was the left that was demanding free speech (often violently), including the "right" to spit on soldiers returning from Viet Nam, calling cops pigs, etc.

Virginia Virginia

Hi OtherTink,

When I was in SF, what you describe is what the Hippies were doing...and I think they did consider themselves "left," but I don't see them as representing ALL the left? More a splinter? No nation should disrespect its soldiers, nor its law enforcement; and i think eventually the whole nation saw that...however only after irreparable injury to too many brave soldiers, of course. 

I found that Hippiedom actually demanded a great deal of conformity...too much for me, anyway.

TheOtherTink Virginia

Hi Virginia,

Yes, of course it was the more extreme elements of the left that (as today) did the street violence, but I think there is and was a high level of sympathy for it among other (more 'respectable') left-leaning people.

And yes, being on the left requires a high degree of conformity, more so (I think) in current American politics than being on the right.

The Democrats in Congress have little difficulty in voting in lock-step (I've heard some liberal friends of mine call it 'party discipline'), whereas organizing Republicans is like herding cats. :D

Virginia Virginia

OtherTink, even though I have voted 'red' more often than 'blue,' I would probably still consider myself to be "left-leaning;" and I can see that you are more "right-leaning"... 

And I just want to tell you, I do find your perspectives very helpful, refreshing, informative.

* Although right now, neither left NOR right has an agenda I could remotely identify with.

TheOtherTink Virginia

@ Virginia,

Well, in the most recent election, I left the presidential line blank on my ballot; I thought both candidates were unacceptable. But then, I live in a state that's so hopelessly blue, my vote didn't really matter, so I could afford that luxury.

Had I lived in a swing state, I would have had to choose, and I think I would reluctantly have voted for Trump, if for no other reason than to keep the Supreme Court from going ideologically too far to the left. Politicized judges who twist and bend the plain language of the Constitution are beneath contempt, in my opinion.

Virginia Virginia

I did something similar, OtherTink...could not bring myself to vote for either one. I MIGHT have considered Hillary, except for the 'dirty tricks' of the DNC upon the Sanders campaign. Choke

My state of Washington has been going blue lately, but that is because of the liberal enclave in the Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia corridor; geographically, ALL of eastern Washington is profoundly red, and they are mad, too...their destiny controlled by said over-populated liberals, whom they see as living disconnected from the land, as ultimate source of livelihood for all.

BUT...then in our winner-take-all state three electors jumped the traces, two of them casting votes for Colin Powell, and exposing themselves to $1000 fines! 

* * *

I was actually proud of Washington State...the Libertarians had a plan where if they could just get 5% of the vote, they could unseat both major candidates...and Washington came close to giving them that!

TheOtherTink Virginia

An example of Sanders having to swallow his pride (if any) and support Hillary, much to the disgust of his supporters. (Actually, I'm quite sure Hillary promised Sanders a cabinet position in exchange for his support.)

Virginia Virginia


I have no TV and had not seen that...I actually laughed! Sanders face got all puckered up, as if he himself was trying to avoid vomit...

TheOtherTink Virginia

@ Virginia,

He indeed looks as if he was trying to avoid vomiting (:D),  but if Hillary had done that to me, I would have taken a walk, and I'm sure many of his supporters stayed home on Election Day, or at least did not vote for Hillary.

Virginia Virginia

+Other Tink:

...as much as I dislike Trump, I actually was surprised to feel a small frisson of relief upon hearing of his election.

TheOtherTink Virginia

Yes, and unlike what many liberals seem to hope for, I hope his administration will not be a disaster.


Virginia Virginia

Yes, the hate propaganda coming from "liberals" concerns me more than Trump himself does...we saw that hate among narrow conservatives toward Obama, and this now toward Trump - BOTH duly elected Presidents - for me tends to erase my own tendency toward liberal bias.

OtherTink...here is a concern since reading your comment on the desperate despots willing to step up and seize power in the wake of a revolution...is the US approaching that stage? Not the revolution stage so much, but a chaos so horrific only a despot would be willing to step in? Somewhat unanswerable, rhetorical...but...

TheOtherTink Virginia

@ Virginia,

I would think not.  The "safespace" snowflakes on university campuses are not real revolutionaries, and conditions in general are not nearly as bad as they were in Russia or Germany after WW1, or indeed in France before the French revolution. Nor are they nearly as bad as they were in the US during the Great Depression, and there was no revolution then, which is not to say there weren't any concerns about a possible revolution at that time.

Virginia Virginia

Points well made...still, for example in this last election Paul Ryan was unwilling to step up...he's too conservative for me, but still someone I could admire...and on the liberal side, Michael Bloomberg also refused. And since Kennedy, there has been an assassination attempt on every president except LBJ...the concern of: Is someone honorable even willing to take on the presidency now?

I would like to see us intercept all this as early as possible, before it reaches that chaos "tipping point."

Meantime, I will make a start by refusing to participate in, nor tolerate from others, the invective toward Trump.

TheOtherTink Virginia

Interestingly, there seem to have been no plots against Eisenhower, but there were against his three immediate predecessors, Truman, FDR and Hoover. Sad state of affairs, that there are so many evil and/or crazy people. :(


An excellent discussion, Virginia and T(h)ink. I am a bit late, and I lost the thread after some connection problems. :)

Virginia Marianne

Hi Marianne! I hope Other Tink sees this answer also...because it is partly responding to Tink's observation about the Presidential assassinations...it does then seem like most of the 20th century those attempts happened!

I read a biography of James A. Garfield once, a potentially great president assassinated in his first year as president, 1881. I think he was in a train station? But even after Lincoln, it was not deemed necessary for any special protection for presidents...attacks so unlikely.

How much the attitudes have changed...

Marianne Marianne

Hello Virginia

Yes, if talking about president assassinations, leaders, kings, etc., history repeats itself.

I think that you are referring to the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Station: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_and_Potomac_Railroad_Station

But if we look into history, the lists are very long.

USA: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinated_American_politicians

Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinations_in_Europe

Virginia Marianne

Hi Marianne,

Yes; that was it, President Garfield was shot at the B&P Station in Maryland! I recall one physician rather insinuated himself as chief medical officer for Garfield...and this fellow did not believe in the rather new concept of sterile technique. So the biography records that Garfield would very likely have survived the gunshot, had not physicians continually probed the would with 'dirty' hands, instruments.

I browsed through the lists you found...what surprised me is the two countries with only one recorded political assassination each. Hungary for one, although perhaps that might be related to the partitioning, that is Hungary was part of Austria, and so such killings did not get recorded as Hungarian?

But...Norway? Only one assassination recorded in history; even neighbor Sweden has lots!

* * *

And, what I am now pondering with the USA is that in the 19th century, even with two presidential assassinations, still presidential protection was not taken all that seriously. Then in the 20th century, the danger seems to have begun with Hoover, taking office in 1929...coinciding with the onset of the Great Depression...and from then on, every president has apparently been threatened excepting only Eisenhower and LBJ...

Marianne Marianne

Yes, certain countries seem to have had smaller numbers of assassinated presidents, but in the past, many military leaders, aristocrats and even kings died in battles, by accident, through diseases, disasters, etc., and many seemingly natural or accidental deaths in great dynasties and the ruling classes could have been caused by poisoning, capital punishment and other "methods". No country had a peaceful history.

Take Hungary in the Middle-Age:


or the Thirty Years' War:


and Norway's history:


Virginia Marianne

Hi Marianne, interesting links. I learned for example the Thirty Years' War was a religious war, killing eight million - and that was in the 17th century! Plus bankrupting many or most of the participants.

Marianne Marianne

Hello, Virginia; yes, cruel history keeps repeating itself - and with it sick-minded superstitions, perversity and the spiral of violence.

There was no perfectly idyllic society ...



I think freedom of speech is left open to the site moderators.  Considering the many books that have been banned over the years, freedom of speech isn't exactly what we think it is, it has to fall within the realms of what government deem acceptable and that which will not cause people to think independently.