Very odd article. On the one hand, the author complains "To deem his punishment censorship — even though it is on a private platform that is not the public square — is exactly what he cynically hopes we will do." On the other, she describes the same thing as "the decision to live or die online" - which is way more extreme than censorship.<p>Trump is cynically hoping you'll call him getting censored censorship, when it clearly is. NYT author is calling the decision to ban someone from Facebook deciding whether they live or die online, which it clearly is not. Huh?<p>Also there are many words that are hyphenated when I think they should not be. I began to wonder if they were encoding some secret message.
> To deem his punishment censorship — even though it is on a private platform that is not the public square — is exactly what he cynically hopes we will do.<p>Wikipedia defines censorship as "the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information"[1] and says that it "can be conducted by governments, <i>private institutions</i>, and other controlling bodies"[1]. So that facebook is a private platform is irrelevant. And even if Trump cynically hopes that we call what happened here by its name, we should do so anyway.<p>[1]: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship</a>
So deliberate censorship of political groups, manipulating elections, suppression of dissenting opinions on experimental gene therapy aka covid vaccines, is all naivete?<p>This pandemic is pushing some people towards extremism and conspiracy theories because of the concerted effort to manipulate public opinion and censor dissenting views. It creeps people out.<p>Accounts get banned for sharing an adverse reaction to mRNA shots and next thing you know people are using code words (like v@xx, wax scene, etc.) and throwaway accounts to post anonymously, sowing even more distrust.
The terrible cost of reporters wanting to maintain close ties and access to scoops from toxic members of our community (not to mention future access in case they decide to convert themselves into VCs, as they do on a frequent basis): these sorts of aw-shucks humble-brag “I got on the phone with Mark he’s really not that bad!” type of nonsense.<p>Mark has serious mental issues. We don’t classify people as mentally ill if they’ve made some certain amount of money, but if we ever get over that bias we would realize people like Kara Swisher spend tons of time selling us on the idea that the decision making of a mentally ill dude with a weird Roman emperor fetish, who is dangerously under-socialized and lives in a bubble of security and yes-men, are the decisions of a wise sage, wiser than any of us will ever be.<p>And I can personally tell you that Kara Swisher has no interest in looking at any evidence that blows up her completely fabricated fantasy. But reality won’t get her that late night call with Mark she clearly desperately seeks; I guess that’s the aging boomer’s version of “I know the guy who runs Tiktok.”