Are Content Approvals A Form Of Censorship?

To be completely honest,sites with content approval has been a total turn off for me,but on the other hand I do think it's a form of censorship without most of us even knowing

On a related issue, this is why Flipstarter remains primarily a tool that anyone can use. Even if a platform appears that uses the technology, you still have the option to campaign if gatekeepers don't like you.

Blogging platforms either don't have qualified reviewers, or the reviewers (editors) don't give time to read/review the submissions. These platforms mostly have binary "Accept and "Don't accept" keys to click. So, it is nothing but censorship. I fully agree with you.

This is just like the case of Facebook Fact-Checkers which they admitted that they were not really fact-checkers but they were just giving out their own opinions.

The problem is real one if my friend also facing the same issue. I appreciate your effort to rise this topic thumbs up

the short answer is... yes

Content approval (censorship) can be A Good Thing, if done fairly and judiciously by the people whom are trusted to wield the power accorded to them. (Benevolent dictators aren't inherently bad, autocratic or otherwise.) In the best case, it ensures that only posts of quality and that are on topic make it into any particular channel/group (particularly if that group is focused on certain political ideologies or causes; you wouldn't want an Incel having free reign in a Feminist group, for example). However, if you don't trust/endorse the moderators (even if you personally don't like them or their decisions), the problem lies with the leadership or the group's members, not the fact that the group is moderated/censored.

I am the owner of a fact-/knowledge-sharing channel on Noise, one of the rules of which is "cite your source", the other is "write legibly". Those are there not because I'm a grammar Nazi (although I am), but so that I can check submissions for accuracy and subscribers can draw their own conclusions from the presented material without having to do mental labour on the behalf of the poster. I've received a number of interesting/informative and well-written submissions, but the key disqualifying factor is that there's no source citation given, so I've rejected them for not adhering to the channel's only rule. Otherwise, I risk decreasing the quality of the channel by flouting standards. My channel, my rules, biased or otherwise. (I'm generally not an adherent or endorser of following rules, but a line has to be drawn somewhere.)

Well-kept walled gardens die by pacifism. When you remove the regulation, you remove the barriers to entry that keep out the trolls. Giving trolls free reign because no banhammer exists or those with the power to wield it are too afraid to is more harmful than using the banhammer with impunity will ever be. As the old adage goes, "if you don't like it, you're as free to leave of your own volition as you were when you joined". Essentially, play by the rules, appeal to authority to change them or GTFO!

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/tscc3e5eujrsEeFN4/well-kept-gardens-die-by-pacifism

I think that is a problem with centralized media. They have to be on the safe side of the government so the company is not at risk.

Hello, my friend,

You are right. Freedom of expression does not need individuals or tribes to approve your content to be viewed on any platform. You need mature people who publish with responsibility and respect, not only for others but also for themselves.

The example you cited is very appropriate. In #Hive, you have total freedom to publish whatever you want, as long as you do not violate the basic norms of the communities.

Although, there will be those who fail to comply and behave improperly. I think it is foolish behavior, to leave an indelible mark, well, as long as the blockchain exists, that could incriminate him in the future.

It is not about self-censorship. No.

If there is an uncomfortable truth to tell. Well, let it be said, without fear.

It is the risk of being really free, without being hostile to others.

I am against the politically correct when it comes to human dignity such as freedom of expression, which is the issue you raise here. Without forgetting the other universally accepted rights that are now being questioned under the banner of progress and subjective ethics.

Greetings.

"I will not recommend nor endorse a platform that has content approvals. "

Those words are the magic keys to the kingdom of credibility.

You're right my friend, you need people to post according to the rules

Dear friend! If approval is carried out on a topic, then this is absolutely normal, since each community has its own topic of discussion.But if it concerns the thought itself, its diversity and pluralism, then this is already censorship and it is not permissible

In all honesty, it's definitely a refined less politically incorrect way of censoring