This is an intriguing topic to me, and one I have been subconsciously avoiding for months now. As a writer who often contributes my own personal opinion in nearly all of my content, internet censorship has a direct impact on my very livelihood. What you may not know, is that internet censorship probably can be nearly as impactful in your own life - even if you don't produce public digital content.

Internet Censorship and the Pits of Reddit

Now I'd like to state first that this is not a political post and will not address anything in regards to laws of various countries on internet censorship or the diverse perspectives on free speech between various governments.

What I will do here is show where censorship exists in your daily internet usage, regardless of what country you live in or laws/organizations you are being governed by; and also, show you how that should matter and inform where and how you spend your time.

Defining Censorship

Going to the root word, censor, censorship is: the practice (key word there) of reviewing media and information (books, art, movies, news, etc.) and suppressing or removing parts (or the entirety) of that media that does not conform to predefined, assumed, or even undisclosed standards.

It's worth pointing out here that standards for censorship vary wildly from one culture, society, or presentation platform to another. Quite often a particular culture, government, or other media realm's standards can change suddenly and unexpectedly - particularly if their standards are undisclosed, assumed, or even worse - not strictly applied without discrimination. As you can imagine, Censorship is a dangerous precipice that nobody wants to write the rules for. The old adage, "You can't please everyone" applies more aptly here than in any other conceivable circumstance.

Unreasonable Expectations

Regardless of where you live, who you work for, or what scenario you find yourself in - true freedom of speech will never exist. It just isn't possible. We live in a world of rules, and those rules not only dictate what we can and cannot do with our actions, but also what we can and cannot do our words. Free speech is an illusion, or a pipe-dream, whichever of those two descriptors you believe feels more applicable. If you fail to follow the rules, there will be consequences to that disobedience, whether or not you agree with those rules.

It's a hard knock life, especially for writers; because not only are there consequences, there are droves of people prepared to push their enforcement - especially on the internet where any facts, opinions, or perspectives can be instantly accessed (sometimes whether they are public are not) by far more people than one might imagine. There are two ways we can go about our work: cave under the pressure of trying to please everyone, which is certainly impossible; or just be yourself and stand by your words (and on occasion - admit your faults). Of course there are other options, which usually amount to some mix of those two; but the point remains - you can either be yourself and be honest, or live behind a mask.

There are no other alternatives.

How This Matters for You

As a content creator, my job revolves primarily around addressing topics, media, information, and analyzing them from my own unique perspective. Some creators try to produce content that will build an audience of people who relate to them, that they can build a following from (and hopefully make a living for all their hard work). Other creators take on a much more challenging role, of being highly critical with their perspectives and actively going against the grain to spark new thought, strike a discussion/debate, or more generally create awareness about unknown (or unpopular) perspectives and opinions.

To a content consumer (like anyone reading this article, and even me - when I am viewing other creator's work) knowing the author's stance is extremely important to whether or not that content has value. Usually, the amount of honesty in an article directly correlates to how valuable the opinion or perspective is (not always, but usually). Even more intriguing, content creators are rarely a one-man show. Most content, including nearly all main-stream, high-profile content, is coming from a platform. That platform and its stance on transparency is equally critical to the real, raw value of whatever media is being consumed.

Using this as an example, TenTonHammer is a platform. It is a unique entity that has its own agenda, it's own goals, and it's own motivations. I am fortunate enough to say that, so far, my experience here has been quite free and liberal - with little to no restrictions on what I can or cannot write about. As long as I am not breaking NDA's or doing other things that will associate this organization with legal trouble or cause an inability for it to continue sustaining itself, I can be as candid, and honest as I want to be. I don't believe that what I'm doing here is common.

Where Internet Censorship Comes In

In fact, I know it isn't common, because independent games journalism is struggling right now. We're in an industry that heavily relies on ad-revenue tied directly to traffic and partnered sales and referrals. That revenue source isn't really optimal for holding up a site that doesn't intentionally pander to what the public wants. Yes, we aim to create relevant content, but we aren't doing it on the sole pretense of profit.

Many sites and I won't point them out - as anyone with common sense is capable of discerning an honest author from a hack - aren't honest. Many content creators are living a lie, and lots of undisclosed censorship happens that readers aren't entirely aware of. While this is definitely troubling, it's not the most concerning piece of the puzzle.

It's sites that pretend to claim "free speech", when we all know the reality that free speech cannot truly exist - not even on the internet. I'm talking about sites like Reddit, Voat, 4chan, 8chan, etc. While the intentions may start out good, these sites typically turn into very toxic environments. This is no slight against anyone who regularly frequents those sites, as it is not the average user that makes these sites a horrible affair to be entrenched in. It is the very, very small minority of truly disturbing people in the world that literally have nowhere else to go. These sites are the path of least resistance for these individuals. It is where they are allowed to live, with very few consequences.

Not only do they have the potential to go horribly wrong, I think any introductory class on social psychology can attest that they ultimately will. It's all just a matter of time.

So What Happens Next?

Does this mean we stop supporting these sites, or stop frequenting them for unique content that might not otherwise find a platform anywhere else? No. That's not what that means. I think these sites can be a good thing, so long as they create at least bare-minimum set of rules of moral and ethical decency to prohibit criminal abuse.

Many sites of these kinds of sites have and do enforce some small set of rules that drive moderation, unfortunately these enforcers are also human, and thus not exempt from fallibility. There will be corruption, there will be abuse of power, and there will be a lack of strict and indiscriminant application of those rules and the consequences there of.

Censorship must exist, at least to a small degree.

The absence of it creates a breeding ground for filth, toxicity, and depravity that will eventually pollute the platform and detract from even the most upstanding, honest, and valuable media or information that finds its origin there. Internet Censorship is unfortunately crucial, at least on the lowest levels. While that doesn't necessarily mean that I support government intervention - history tends to indicate that if a population won't police themselves, a higher power that is ultimately responsible for the well-being of that population will eventually step in and do the policing for them.

The Dangers of a Site like Reddit

That means that it is on the onus of a community to strictly and justly police itself, especially the more freedom of speech that any given community allows. The current debacle with Richard Lewis (an eSports journalist) and Reddit has me questioning the stories on both sides, to some extent. After researching for just a few hours, I can't honestly say which party I find myself more in agreement with - but I'll tell you one thing:

I have noticed a compelling lack of honesty on the side of the Reddit moderators for at least one particular subreddit forum.

And in the spirit of complete honesty on my own part, I'm not even sure I can blame them. Reddit itself is a dangerous place. That's like asking an officer to go undercover into a criminal organization and be above-reproach and live completely by the law. It just isn't humanly possible. Even the most trustworthy, honest, and kind individuals will eventually crack under the pressure in some way. That is why sites like Reddit and some of the others I mentioned above are so dangerous and why I also don't frequent them too often.

That in no way is a way a statement of me being better than anyone who does frequent that site. It's more a statement that I don't quite trust myself to be strong enough not to fall into all of the pitfalls one is guaranteed to find while engaging with highly-anonymous communities that have very few consequences for an individual's words or actions.

Final Thoughts

As someone who writes honestly and is putting my real name and livelihood out there for scrutiny, that's just not the kind of place I'd prefer to take my chances. What's happening with the Richard Lewis saga is a prime example of how things can go wrong, even if you're not part of an oppressed minority group. Horrifyingly though, it's not an example of how badly things could ultimately get.

Still, it should be a reminder to everyone that each and every right and liberty we enjoy can, and will be, abused at some point - by someone out there. Unfortunately for communities like Reddit the core principles they operate on are magnets for the type of disturbed individuals that are actively trying to abuse freedoms and exercise their rights in ways that were not intended by those who penned them. For the unfortunate volunteer police that moderate those places, I'm not sure I'll ever understand your motivations if they are, in fact, seeded out of good intent and honesty.

That may not be a popular opinion but it is, at least, honest.

[For more information and a different perspective on the Richard Lewis vs. LoL subreddit Mods saga, one of my colleagues has also shared his thoughts on the topic.]