This post is primarily a response to @blakemiles84 's posts here and here, and an attempt to answer the question: "is steemit inherently more censorship resistant than facebook."

Censor-Ship Down -- the problem with discussing Steemit censorship.

There is a problem with comparing Steemit to conventional social media platforms, especially with regard to censorship. Many of the rules on steemit aren't really codified. In order to properly discuss potential and actual censorship censorship here, one must examine actual case examples. That means, to a certain extent, discussing actual things that actual people have said and done. In some cases, this might be interpreted as attack. It is not intended as such. There is simply no other way to compare the reality here at steemit with the reality at other social media platforms.

Defining Censorship

In his second post, @blakemiles84 proposes proposes a definition of censorship that i feel is fairly narrow. I would like to propose a broader one that is also more in line with US caselaw regarding free speech and expression.

"The suppression of words, images, or ideas that are considered offensive" (taken from the ACLU website) Personally, i think this definition more fully encompasses both the situation on Facebook as described by Blake, as well as potential and actual situations here on steemit. It is also more in line with US caselaw. Though such law is not directly applicable to private corporations like steemit and facebook it does provide a more detailed framework by which to evaluate what really is censorship and what really isnt.

The most important thing we can learn from US caselaw is that censorship is not merely the annihilation of information (although that is certainly one form of censorship). Concealing information, making it harder for the potential recipient to receive it or discouraging the creator from sharing it by threatening punitive measures is also censorship.

Censorship is the inhibition of expression, as well as the annihilation of information

Rather the Government argues that, since an addressee taking the trouble to return the card can receive the publication named in it, only inconvenience and not an abridgment is involved. But inhibition as well as prohibition against the exercise of precious First Amendment rights is a power denied to government.

Chief Justice Brennan, Lamont v Postmaster General (1965)

In this case, the post office required people who were mailed communist party literature to fill out a card requesting to have the post office deliver it. In the same sense, imagine that you had sign outside of your shop advertising steemit. Imagine some official came along and covered your sign with a black tarp. He said to you "well, its not really censorship, because if passersby wish to see your message, they can merely lift the tarp."

In fact, even Matt Orfelea's case (the guy on FB that Blake was talking about)was a matter of making the information less accessible, not destroying it. Facebook merely removed the embedded youtube link in his post.

The video still existed, it was just not as easy to find on facebook as it had been.

The Importance of Being Earnest

It was tough choosing between a Jane Austen pun and an Oscar Wilde pun for the title of this post. I decided to lead with Austen as the title and use Wilde as a header. I actually came up with the Wilde one before i even read the @Blakemiles84 post, after an encounter I had on steemit chat that got me thinking about the steemit platform and censorship. I decided to combine my answer to Blake and my musings about the situation I encountered on steemit chat into one post.

I don't typically check steemit chat that frequently. Normally when I'm at my desk, I'm doing multiple things along with steemit, so there's no real way for me to monitor a RT chat channel. When I do check chat, ill usually cycle through the channels Im on to see if there's anything that piques my interest.

When i got to the steemit abuse classic channel, I was rather surprised to see a very well-known whale, talking about using the police and "underground connections" to stop a user from posting. I clicked on the link provided by the whale, looking for the abusive posts described, and instead found only relatively innocuous (if critical and profanity laced) comments.

They were hidden because of the users reputation. I decided to upvote (and thus reveal) them all, because i thought it was fair to do so given the gross overreaction I had observed in chat. If we're threatening to call the police on this guy, and use "underground connections" to do god knows what to him, the comments that provoked this reaction ought to at least be visible, right?

Around an hour later, I was confronted by a well known, well respected blogger on this site, who demanded an explanation for my upvotes. I asked him on chat if i could copy and paste the conversation, but he declined, so i'll just paraphrase (though the irony of not allowing a conversation about censorship to be published is not lost on me). If youre really interested, you can probably still find it on the steemit abuse channel.

He thought that the individual in question was "abusing" a certain other member. When i asked him what form this abuse was taking, the gist I got was that he was posting disagreeable comments on her posts, and that he refused to stop when she asked him to. So the "abuse" was that she didn't like what he had to say, and he wouldnt stop saying it.

Obsta Principiis (it means resist the beginning)

It may be that it is the obnoxious thing in its mildest and least repulsive form; but illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, namely, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions should be liberally construed...It is the duty of courts to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizen, and against any stealthy encroachments thereon. Their motto should be obsta principiis. We have no doubt that the legislative body is actuated by the same motives; but the vast accumulation of public business brought before it sometimes prevents it, on a first presentation, from noticing objections which become developed by time and the practical application of the objectionable law.

Now, those of you who know who im talking about might be asking yourself why i'm defending such an obvious asshole.

The answer is simple -- because it always starts the same way. With a nice, well respected guy who wants just a little more leeway to deal with the obvious asshole. Every single right that people used to have. Every single piece of privacy that they gave up. Every single freedom that has ever been curtailed. It didn't start with a ravening monster of greed and ambition, hungering to opress the innocent. It started with a nice guy who everyone liked who wanted just a little more slack than he ought to have had. Im sure there was some super nice facebook employee who was just looking to protect users from some evil troll, once upon a time.

But the thing is, once censorship or repression gets its foot in the door, the door almost always opens wider and wider over time.

Blake poses the following question

Facebook is actively engaging in censorship as a matter of POLICY and employs people toshut down accounts and remove content from their PRIVATELY OWNED platform.

The policy he cites is (in part) reads:

Recently there has been some attention given to Facebook’s content policy. The current concern, voiced by Women, Action and The Media, The Everyday Sexism Project, and the coalition they represent, has focused on content that targets women with images and content that threatens or incites gender-based violence or hate. ... We prohibit content deemed to be directly harmful, but allow content that is offensive or controversial. We define harmful content as anything organizing real world violence, theft, or property destruction, or that directly inflicts emotional distress on a specific private individual (e.g. bullying).

Now let me share with you a quote from my discussion on steemit chat. I am using three lines from a long conversation that the other party would not allow me to publish because doing so is in line with fair use. And because the conversation is in the public domain as its available on the chat server.

by upvoting all his comments (which, again, cause harm to xxx), you're going against how the system is designed to work (IMO)...why not just create your own fork of the code and try to convince people your uncensored browser is better?... again, your actions are against the very design of the steemit.com system which is supposed to respect negative reputations by hiding them by default unless someone chooses to see them

Now admitted, im no expert on blockchain technology, but that seems like a policy even more restrictive than than facebooks to me.

Earnest Goes to Camp

So lets compare Steemit to Facebook:

1. Value of the speech. Edge on this one clearly has to go to steemit. Earnest is a troll at best. Orfaeala is engaging political speech.

2. Content annihilated or just made less accessible: It looks like a push here. Posts remain on the blockchain (or revealable if you click through) , but the video in question remained on a youtube account. It seems to me that there is always a way to make sure your content isnt actually destroyed.

3. Severity of speech which triggers censorship: I gotta give the edge to facebook here. Merely offensive speech is sufficient to cause a censorship without causing actual harm here (at least, i can see no harm).

4. Severity of penalty. I didn't hear about FB calling the cops on anyone, or using underground connections to attack him somehow. But that seems to be something that can potentially happen here. Advantage fb on this one too

5. Duration of censorship a whale downvote can make all your posts invisible depending on the size of the whale and your rep going in. On facebook, it seems to be (at least in Orfaela's case) a post by post basis. Advantage fb on this one too

Now, I suppose I could go on at length (well at more than i already have) but the point here is that we have two different platforms with two different (but comparable) methods of censorship. Steemit is new, it could get much better or it could get much worse. Neither platform is meaningfully censorship resistant. Each is potentially better or worse than the others in specific areas.

As i said at the beginning of this discussion, i see no compelling argument to establish that steemit is fundamentally more censorship resistant that isnt based on NTS or stacking the deck.

But if we can justify any type of censorship by merely saying "it doesnt matter, its still on the blockchain" i suspect things will become much worse.

When all is said and done, the people who deplore censorship may not get the platform they want. But they will most certainly get the platform they deserve. I suppose thats all anyone can really ask for.

JPK