Why isn't this censorship?

[SimonDoom]

Gotta pop the bubble again.

Your five inch heel should do the trick.

 

[SkyBubble]

To me, it's content moderation - maintaining community standards.

Correct. One can argue for more or less community moderation, but community moderation is present on virtually every website (except maybe a few on the dark web.)

 

[SkyBubble]

How does anyone involved in this thread know whether or not the complaint was substantiated?

Nobody would know except Laurel and maybe the author.

 

[SkyBubble]

Exactly. This is also why there were valid complaints from conservatives about being banned from private platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, and etc. because the effort seemed to be coordinated and as it turned out it was being coordinated by whoever was pulling the strings in the White House. I'd say Biden but as of this moment it's pretty clear he didn't control anything during his four years as the Occupant In Chief.

Correct. And the media covered for them.

 

[SkyBubble]

18 and 19 year olds are teens. Just going by the title there's no issue.

We've defined 18 year olds and up as legal adults. Perhaps the phraseology should be "minors" instead of "teens," but the point is the same.

 

[SkyBubble]

Actually, she had a great point. Using the word Teen in the title is going to get the story a look under the microscope.

Correct.

 

[djrip]

We've defined 18 year olds and up as legal adults. Perhaps the phraseology should be "minors" instead of "teens," but the point is the same.

Teens includes adult teens, and is an extremely common term in porn and erotica, and in those contexts it means 18 and 19 year olds basically all the time.

 

[SkyBubble]

I was using the entirety of the original conversation to reach a conclusion. The title alone is not the only clue we have available to us. In the same thread, the OP insisted that not only had they been censored, they'd already tried to resubmit and were blocked. And then Laurel herself replied, pointing to the FAQ on how to resubmit.

So. New author, who doesn't read the rules, doesn't read the rejection notices she's given, writes a story with  that title, and then starts a thread about how persecuted she is. These are our clues.

i fully admit the nail metaphor was not a charitable take, but there’s only so many times you can see this loop play out over a decade without coming to some jaded conclusions.

@AwkwardMD this is entirely correct. Read the rules, and submit (and resubmit) accordingly.

 

[AwkwardMD]

Teens includes adult teens, and is an extremely common term in porn and erotica, and in those contexts it means 18 and 19 year olds basically all the time.

That's not a person who is engaging with your post meaningfully. Those are all chatbot-informed responses.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

If we're going back to age, I may need the whole damn bottle.

 

[SkyBubble]

I have one story where the characters are 21. The first time I submitted it, it was sent back. When I looked at it again, I hadn't been clear enough on that. I simply added a sentence or two to clarify it, then resubmitted it and it got approved in the normal time frame.

 

[SkyBubble]

I think Civics classes stopped in the 80's. Fortunately I was able to attend in the 70's.

Pretty much. And it was a conscious decision by the powers that be. They don't want us to understand civics or the Constitution or how our government works. The more people understand that, the more it inhibits their ability to just do whatever they want, regardless of constitutional or other limitations.

I am proud to say that my alma mater offer free online courses on the Constitution and hands out copies of it.

 

[SkyBubble]

I partly disagree. Your post makes sense, but I'd say that the motive for regulation/censorship makes a lot of difference in choosing one or the other term.

For example, to include the favorite pastime of you Americans, say there is a public platform named Icecream, and say that it's privately owned and fully within its rights to regulate its own content. No problems so far, right? But say that the platform is left-aligned (or right-aligned, take your pick as it doesn't matter at all) and thus will remove any rightist ideas posted by forum users, while allowing leftist ideas to stay.
Is that censorship? I'd say yes, even if the private platform is exercising its right to regulate its own content. It's the intent to quell the opinions that differ from their own that makes it censorship.

So again, Literotica's rules are fine because they stem from legal concerns mostly, not due to bigotry or false morality. Laurel's stance on AI might be borderline censorship (if and only if she is doing it out of her own convictions and not legal concerns). I mean, personally, I am fucking glad she censors AI content, but still, it might be censorship, depending on what her motives are.

My view of what constitutes censorship might be wrong, but I put a lot of weight on intent and motivations behind the censorship.

Oh, Bluesky.

 

[SkyBubble]

I mean, personally, I am fucking glad she censors AI content

So am I.

 

[SkyBubble]

We're in a discussion here about the broad and narrow definitions of the word censorship. Either way, Laurel has a right to run her website as she sees fit. Other websites hvae different standards. If you don't like Lit's standards, there are options.

 

[SkyBubble]

It was part of Social Studies but I did what I’d call civics in elementary school in the 2000s. We even had a field trip about it. So we learned about the different branches of government and the constitution etc. Did some of the amendments as well including the first.

You're young!

 

[SkyBubble]

Thinking a little more about this I am reminded of what might well be an apocryphal tale about George Bernard Shaw. The story goes that he was sitting in a London hotel bar or restaurant with a well known actress, and the conversation turns to prostitution. GBS asks the actress, "would you sleep with me for a million pounds?" The actress erms and ahhs but basically says, "well, yes, I suppose...." GBS nods and says, "well, would you sleep with me for five pounds?" The actress huffs and splutters out, "George, what do you take me for!?" "Oh, I know what you are," GBS shoots back, quick as a flash, "now we're merely arguing over the price..."

Shaw's play Heartbreak House was originally titled Closed for Renovation. They tried several theaters and all of them lost money before Shaw retitled it.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

Can anybody make it stop?

 

[SkyBubble]

Frank Zappa, Dee Snider and John Denver.

There's an odd combination.

 

[SkyBubble]

The First Amendment of the US Constitution applies to governments, and in some limited cases to quasi-public entities like shopping malls, but in general it does not apply to private entities like Literotica.

Both Lit and a shopping mall (of which there are fewer and fewer) are privately-owned entities with public access.

 

[SkyBubble]

Ohh, sweetie, wonderful attempt to obfuscate. I bet you were really impressed with yourself when you typed that out.

How is @AwkwardMD obfuscating?

 

[TheArsonist]

In this instance, @Kelliezgirl is absolutely correct. "A censor", "to censor" and "censorship" have been commonly used for non-government parties and their activities for at least a hundred years (and much longer if you include the Church and Inquisition). The OED has a bunch of citations:

1905 Academy 27 May 562/1 Maternal censorship is rigid, the Russian blacking-out system not more so.
1924 J. O. Field Uncensored Recoll.
1929 Variety 3 Apr. 11/4 That this picture may aggravate blue nose censors [i.e., prudes] is not beyond the bounds of possibility.
1931 F. L. Allen Only Yesterday iii. 59 Book-censors, Jew-haters, Negro-haters, landlords, manufacturers, utility executives, upholders of every sort of cause,..all wrapped themselves in Old Glory and the mantle of the Founding Fathers.
1935 S. Lewis It can't happen Here iv. 42 Father Charles Coughlin, of Detroit..first thought out the device of freeing himself from any censorship of his political sermons..by ‘buying his own time on the air’.
1968 Life 12 Apr. 18/4 The Rowan and Martin [a TV show] staff, they say, is so free-wheeling that a fulltime censor has been assigned [by the network]
1971 S. Marcus in Atlantic Monthly Apr. 95 His praiseworthy intention to bring great genius before large numbers of readers comes to seem suspect in the light of the corrupt and corrupting means he employs in censoring, simplifying, and saccharinizing it.
1974 Times 18 Nov. 15/1 Advertisers threaten press freedom if they try to use their advertising power as a form of censorship.
1980 Times 7 May 18/2 Charlie Chan was always successful... This was ‘because’ he was Chinese... Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis, particularly the progeny of a nasty modern breed of censors... working up a protest against the revival of Charlie Chan.
1985 Washington Post 7 May a14/2 On-campus movies are censored to the equivalent of a G rating.
1987 Melody Maker 15 Aug. 7 No pictures of pop stars' knobs this week due to a bit of ‘Spycatcher’ type censorship round these parts.
1989 Face Jan. 66/2 Mann has had grief from snobby film critics and from the censorship lobby.
1996 Guardian 18 Mar. i. 11/2 Some MPs are proselytising the V-chip, the American censor-in-the-set device.

(I've omitted numerous citations about the Freudian concept of an "inner censor.")

As Wikipedia sums up:

Censorship can be conducted by governments and private institutions. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of their own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship.

 

[SkyBubble]

I had writing up on another site (HF)

@AwkwardMD, what is HF?

 

[SimonDoom]

View attachment 2557009

We will do this again, and again. Drink, my friends.

Suggestions?

Tea?

Bourbon?

Hemlock?

 

[AwkwardMD]

Suggestions?

Tea?

Bourbon?

Hemlock?

Absinthe, my good man. We drink Absinthe.