Are Content Approvals A Form Of Censorship?

16 284
Avatar for scottcbusiness
Written by
This user is who they claim to be.
We have manually verified this user via some other channel.
Proof
2 years ago

Content approvals are becoming a more common form of censorship. Even if you are regularly approved, the fact that your content needs to be reviewed at all is the issue.

https://youtu.be/JIpSJFZ9uMU

Itโ€™s impossible for someone in a manual review to always be unbiased and as such, Iโ€™ve run into many situations where this has become a problem on various platforms. Iโ€™d like to specifically talk about these platforms and then cover content approvals in general in how they affect creators and free speech.

ย 

Brighteon โ€“ Content approvals

Trybe โ€“ Content approvals

Cos.tv โ€“ Content approvals

YouTube โ€“ Community strike โ€“ Retroactive blacklist for content

Vimeo & Dailymotion โ€“ Banned

ย 

The ethos behind most alternative social platforms, crypto-monetized and blockchain platforms is typically one of freedom and decentralization. So, the entire idea of needing to have your content approved goes against these values and does not align with what most people are looking for on these platforms.

ย 

I will not recommend nor endorse a platform that has content approvals. Even if itโ€™s coming from a good place, it creates the opportunity for abuse to happen. This is amplified the more centralized a platform is. The best example of a fully decentralized platform to lead as an example to aim for is the Hive network.

ย 

What do you think of content approvals? What platforms do you prefer? Is this a form of censorship? Let me know what you think about this in the comments below and donโ€™t forget to subscribe!

ย 

*Disclaimer: This is not financial advice and is purely for entertainment purposes. What you see, hear, or read is my personal opinion, and any statements made are based on my views and should not be misconstrued as fact. My crypto portfolio may or may not be simulated*

ย 

๐Ÿ‘ฅ Support Me & Follow Me Elsewhere ๐Ÿ‘ฅ

๐Ÿ‘‰ http://www.scottcbusiness.com

Ask questions in my Telegram: https://t.me/cryptoandthings

You can find all my cryptocurrency addresses on https://cointr.ee/scottcbusiness

You can find all of my referral links here: https://linktr.ee/scottcbusiness

23
$ 22.05
$ 21.76 from @TheRandomRewarder
$ 0.10 from @Pantera
$ 0.05 from @Olasquare
+ 6
Sponsors of scottcbusiness
empty
Avatar for scottcbusiness
Written by
This user is who they claim to be.
We have manually verified this user via some other channel.
Proof
2 years ago

Comments

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

$ 0.00
2 years ago

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.

$ 0.01
2 years ago

That's pretty cool, good to know.

$ 0.00
User's avatar scottcbusiness
This user is who they claim to be.
We have manually verified this user via some other channel.
Proof
2 years ago

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.

$ 0.01
2 years ago

Yeah 100%, thanks for your feedback.

$ 0.00
User's avatar scottcbusiness
This user is who they claim to be.
We have manually verified this user via some other channel.
Proof
2 years ago

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.

$ 0.01
2 years ago

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

$ 0.01
2 years ago

the short answer is... yes

$ 0.01
2 years ago

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

$ 0.00
2 years ago

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.

$ 0.01
2 years ago

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.

$ 0.01
2 years ago

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


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

$ 0.01
2 years ago

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

$ 0.01
2 years ago

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

$ 0.01
2 years ago

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

$ 0.01
2 years ago

exactly

$ 0.01
2 years ago