Policing aesthetic interests is AFAICT a way that westerners colonize idea. It is at best a culturally insensitive worldview. At it's worst, it's gentrification + puritanism on a large scale and in my personal left-leaning stance is unethical.
In our global environment that is the internet, it feels like a book-burning. But the kind where you go into another country's libraries and destroy anything that you find disgusting in their culture. Or when you take over a country and break off all the statues penises and replace them with a fig leaf.
Its a way to say: "this platform isn't for you" - you aren't allowed to have those books on display.
Cultural Genocide is what I personally believe this is.
It involves the eradication and destruction of cultural artifacts, such as books, artworks, and structures, and the suppression of cultural activities that do not conform to the destroyer's notion of what is appropriate. Motives may include religious ones (e.g., iconoclasm), as part of a campaign of ethnic cleansing in order to remove the evidence of a people from a specific locale or history, as part of an effort to implement a Year Zero, in which the past and its associated culture is deleted and history is "reset", the suppression of an indigenous culture by invaders and colonisers, along with many other potential reasons.
Censorship like that can manifest as a form of systemic racism/insidious patriotism. It is the alienation of the foreign other - actionable xenophobia against the systems of another people you don't understand or agree with. When weaponized as a form of propaganda on an aggressive scale it can wipe out entire swaths of people who don't have alternative tools to make meaning.
We tend to frame it as erasing history, but when norms around policing other people's behavior (meant to affect a local society) manifest online, the real-time reach and potential negative effects of silencing IMHO outweigh the benifit because the minorities this affects are often silenced along with the destruction.
It's cultural abortion - the strong preying on the weak.
When companies do this, we call it a monopoly and consider it bad.
"Embrace, extend, and extinguish", also known as "Embrace, extend, and exterminate", is a phrase that the U.S. Department of Justice found was used internally by Microsoft to describe its strategy for entering product categories involving widely used standards, extending those standards with proprietary capabilities, and then using those differences to disadvantage its competitors.
When societies do it thru their social institutions, we call it moral righteousness and give it a pass.
Sorry, but I'll pass.
The reason I sought out something like are.na was because Pinterest's stance was asinine. A bunch of my private (read: not something others can see) collections included risky art of various characters in armor. This is a compendium that goes along with this public facing armor collection:
I had been research space suits and was interested in the intersection of art and creativity when it comes to fasion and suit design. - Lots of anime and cartoons has risky suit designs and a lot of tha bleeds over into some really detailed fan art. Strangely they also tend to be the most detailed physical anatomy, especially with how the armor interfaces with the body.
But they kept deleting pins because others had put the same images in porn collections. I think the term for this is "chilling effect".
Fuck that. I'm researching stuff like https://www.are.na/ultimape/surface-mount-cyborg and suit design to figure out how to fix myself - to deal with crushing depression issues and coping with the stresses of autism/sensory processing. I'm not OK with Pinterest deciding what I can and can not look at on that mission.
Their argument in the FAQ? "a secret board could be made public in one click". But why not just have a NSFW feature to prevent that instead of policing aesthetic interests?
This is why I'm removing myself from twitter and deleting facebook.
You aren't in control of the platform so they can delete your account or suspend you without reproach. A bunch of accounts were supsended that I referred to heavily beacause of a couple of bad things they said. 120k+ tweets just gone. And another couple hundred thousand more from people who left the watering hole.
It's like banishing a person because they are having a bad day and are grumpy. Systematic silencing because they don't happen to hold the 'right belifes' or 'correct ways of acting'. Instead of teaching and opening up to them, you delete them because they are a blight on your community you'd rather push under the rug.
Twitter's new rules are all about 'advertiser friendly content' and as such all the tweets I've said in the past that talk about depression can't be said anymore otherwise I'd get suspended.
You aren't welcome there. You aren't wanted there.
Facebook is in the same sort of position with regards to their funding models and incentives. Some of my friend aren't on there anymore because they were banned for not using their real name.
Lots of activists are banned for saying 'naughty words'. People banned for showing too much skin, etc. Heaven forbid you do something against the community guidelines and then your entire support network is pulled out from under you. Maybe you did nothing wrong, but now you are a bystander and have to confess your sins or burn at the stake like a witch. (and i'm seeing increasing trends of people suggesting "following is supporting")
I'm not comfortable with a platform that can destroy what I care about because it is not good for their advertisers, or because the majority has decided you are a pariah because you don't share the same cultural programming and they have managed to get it into the 'community guidelines'.
Shunning. Isolating. Alone. This is is how you breed hatred and resentment.