Comment on [deleted]
theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 6 days agoif you want to define censorship in this context that way, you’re more than welcome to, but it is a non-standard definition that I am not really sold on the efficacy of. I certainly won’t be using it going forwards.
Lol you’ve got to be trolling.
Image arxiv.org/html/2504.03803v1
I just felt the need to clarify to anyone reading that Willison isn’t a nobody
I didn’t say he’s a nobody. What was that about a “respectable degree of chartiable interpretation of others”? Seems like you’re the one putting words in mouths, here.
If he was writing about django, I’d defer to his expertise.
jwmgregory@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 days ago
Nope, not trolling at all.
From your own provided source on the arxiv, Noels et al. define censorship as:
Which is starkly different from the definition you yourself gave. I actually like their definition a whole lot more. Your definition is problematic because it excludes a large set of behaviors we would colloquially be interested in when studying “censorship.”
Again, for the third time, that was not really the point either and I’m not interested in dancing around a technical scope defining censorship in this field, at least in this discourse right here and now. It is irrelevant to the topic at hand.
In the context of this field of work and study, you basically did call him a nobody, and the point being harped on again, again, and again to you is that this is a false assertion. I did interpret you charitably. Don’t blame me because you said something wrong.
theunknownmuncher@lemmy.world 6 days ago
…
Lol this you?