Related to Ion Fury:
<https://twitter.com/Nifflas/status/1166024631784005632>
```Censorship is something forcefully imposed against one's will by someone in a more powerful position.```
Oh no, are we doing the racism thing with censorship too?

ah crap seriously?

although, it does require having authority to enforce any censorship

Censorship does not require force. You can use social influence to invoke self censorship. Its still censorship, i think the term censorship has to reflect the motivation to do it. If nifflas changes something to comply with personal belief then it is not censorship. If your doing it as a response to outside pressures, it is censorship

The fact things are created and then removed would indicate it is a done based on outside forces (if it was principaled you never would habe thought/considered it to start with)

censorship absolutely requires force. self censorship is simply capitulation to those that wield that force

The word force is problematic, i think you confuse force and influence

well i originally used the word authority

and i still think thats a better word

in this instance the publisher is the one that has authority over the game devs

Censorship does not require authority or force

how could it not?

Because you can censor based on influence, influence does not require authority or force

how do you censor based on influence?

Seems like a largely semantic argument

Threat of boycott could cause censorship, but isn't a form of force or authority, I suppose

its a threat of financial harm

You can choose to censor to avoid a diacussion about the subject as an example. There is no force

I don't talk about killing nazis in front of children. That is a form of censorship not based on force or authority

i dont see how that can be censorship if you do not desire to say it

nor are you compelled not to say it

Its self censorship, because i do desire to say it

you can say it, but you choose not to.

i dont think thats equivalent

nor does that disprove the need to have authority over someone in order to censor

It is equilevent because the motive for the censor matters

how?

some censorship is good then?

Then your arguement is that sense you are the authority over your own censorship. Authority exists?

Ofc some censorship is good

well that would work

i still dont think self censorship is equivalent to actual censorship.

unless you are self censoring as a response to threat of actual censorship.

So then authority is not required for censoring

how does that follow from what i said?

maybe its my second statement. let me rephrase it

You said self censoring is not equivalent to "actual" censorship. But used censoring to define both

God damn it, I gotta side with @Putz.
Doesn't matter if someone put a gun to your head, pulled the trigger twice, and burned your house to the ground or *just* sent a snarky tweet telling thier friends not to read your books because you call people faggots, it's still an attempt to *force* you to not speak.
Or paint.
Or make a film.
Or whatever the fuck it is...

So here's to saying faggot all God damned day, may we say it everyday, you faggots.

unless you are self censoring as a response to threat of force.

im using your term "self censoring"

so because i use your term, i therefore am disproven?