Censorship?

[Duncan Edwards]

So my point is that it is futile to lament the reality of this situation by harassing the person who controls a given forum, why should they give up control of something that they created? Instead, direct your ire towards the sad fact that no one else will step up and put the time, effort, and resources into creating a new forum that they do not intervene in to control beyond the most basic legalities if you want to vent your frustration at the situation. Or if you want to do something positive, be part of the solution and help get a new forum started that has the characteristics that are considered to be missing here.

I think he's got it.

[bfc796]

"If you say something that the majority of the crowd disagrees with..."

How do you know what the majority of the crowd (viewing audience) agrees or disagrees with? Or do you just assume that your views are representative of the consensus opinion and therefore feel entitled to speak on behalf of other people? And even if that assumption is correct, it doesn't somehow automatically invalidate the minority view being expressed (Copernicus, Galileo, Giordarno Bruno, etc).

Regarding the bone of contention here, I wasn't aware of any censorship taking place (although it figures that only those affected would) - if you want to witness a online public forum where censorship is rife, check out the 'Comment is Free' BTL comments at the Guardian website - the army of moderators there have completely closed down any real, meaningful, scientific debate on certain topics (supporting Anthropogenic Global Warming, de-ligitimizing serious conspiracy research).

"This message was removed because it did not comply with our community guidelines."

Guardian Mind Police Force, now recruiting volunteers from the readership to autonomously act as self-appointed perception managers and unilateral arbiters of what is permissible freedom of speech (free power trip for the dogmatically inclined).