Do you believe censorship is about intention or is it purely a measure of consequence?
What belief? Censorship is either ON/HAPPENING or it is OFF/NOT-HAPPENING. Though that might not be as interesting to you as the why behind it, censorship is the act irrespective of intent, and no matter how you try and avoid that absolutely no intent can make something censorship simply and/or purely because of intent.
You're avoiding what I said initially about intentions and Censorship either way through, and this left turn in the conversation you tried to make with intention and censorship was in avoidance of what I said regarding your false equivalents that Booing is Censorship, something you've to yet refute:
SteemPeak
Reply to: There's absolutely nothing wrong...
Go to original post
Go to parent post
baah 61
16 days ago
1 MIN READ
106 WORDS
It's not the equivalent at all. You keep asserting so though despite that censorship is not Broadcasting what you want to censor with a loud noise over it, especially when you don't have the only copy and cannot stop anyone from writing or speaking by such ridiculous "tactics", the difference is between a speaking engagement being stopped vs being disrupted, exactly like steem, nobody can stop anyone from writing no matter how much they try to disrupt them,
Would it be fair to say you subscribe to deontological ethics?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontological_ethics
Deontological ethics
In moral philosophy, deontological ethics or deontology (from Greek δέον, deon, "obligation, duty") is the normative ethical theory that the morality of an action should be based on whether that action itself is right or wrong under a series of rules, rather than based on the consequences of the action. It is sometimes described as duty-, obligation- or rule-based ethics. Deontological ethics is commonly contrasted to consequentialism, virtue ethics, and pragmatic ethics. In this terminology, action is more important than the consequences.
(IFF) censorship is the effect (THEN) a news outlet that prefers to publish national news and ignores local news (or vice-versa) is de facto censoring the news stories it doesn't publish.
Does this standard sound consistent with your "censorship is the effect" framework?
The difference between ignoring and removing is contingent on MOTIVATION.
The "effect" is identical.
Now it's "not motive alone"? Exactly how much motive is relevant in your opinion, and what mysterious "other factors" do you consider critical in determining if something is "censored" or not?
So, just for clarity's sake, If someone goes to a newspaper and begs them to write a story about how puppies are being slaughtered or some-such, and the newspaper doesn't write that story, instead they feature the grand-opening of a new ice-cream parlor on their front page, would you consider that "passive ignoring" or "active avoiding"?