Censorship Against Censorship

The idea of censorship is to protect people.

For example, suppose one finds out your real name and address if you are anonymous on the internet, reveals that information and makes an open, public call to murder you.

For example, the messenger app Telegram bans such criminal posts.

The problem with censorship, however, is that it can be misused, and as a rule, it will be misused.

For example, Facebook’s censorship does not follow its own written rules.

Facebook takes down absolutely innocent posts simply because some group of people does not like such facts, ideas, Etc.

Sometimes, they call it “political correctness”; sometimes, they present it as a fight against “misinformation”.

At the same time, Facebook does not take down even highly criminal posts if the victims are politically “justified victims”.

In that way, Facebook censors proven and essential facts, and endorses violence against, for example, Russians.

It means that Facebook’s censorship is ideologically/politically motivated and biased.

The same applies to many other Western Big Tech platforms, for example, Twitter and Google.

It means that often, censorship is misused; it is applied not to protect people but as a weapon to spread one’s ideology and suppress everything critical concerning it.

Everything that is initially good is finally used by bad guys.


Suppose bad guys are using censorship on Facebook to promote their politics. In that case, all countries that are suffering from that biased censorship on Facebook are justified to censor Facebook and ban it, block it.

That is how I understand these issues.

For example, those countries who have banned Wikipedia have perhaps done the right thing because Wikipedia, in fact, is not an objective and neutral encyclopedia but a politically biased propaganda machine.

The greatest demagoguery of our time is the assumption that censoring, banning or blocking big Western social media platforms is automatically an act against freedom of information, speech and democracy.

If state A bans country B’s social media platform because of its biased censorship, then it is rather a form of paternalism.

Moreover, it is up to A to decide whether the social media platform of B, operating in A, violates the rules of justified and neutral censorship.


Published by wrestlerblower


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: