I’m not sure how to define censorship.
With the idea of fake news, misinformation, and even the polarization of media – we come up with what some call censorship and others call responsible tending of the public (the shepherds keeping the wolves away from the flock).
I joined a group called academia.edu a number of years ago. Those involved in some way with the academy were invited to join. I like research, I like to write, I like to continue my education. The site has been a gold mine of research and articles.
To monetize this venture, the site began to summarize articles and provide special search services for the users. If you wanted, you could move from a free membership into a price range to suit your needs.
The latest improvement – still on the way – is fact checking. We used to call this peer review. Without going into a total rant, fact checking is a scientific venture or a means of censorship. Depends on which side of the “truth” you fall.
Our current polarization is based on fact checking. At least, that’s what I’m struggling to understand.
Are we really able to have a good dialogue if we can’t agree on the facts? I would go one step further. Can we dialogue if we can’t even agree on the rules for not only what we accept but also how we will construe what we accept?
Just my thoughts after a day of reading Facebook rants has come to an end!