Disrespect, lies, etc are from the basis of their questions or comments, in a open q&a session. If they are removed because of them being of a certain ideology, then it would be censorship, but to remove someone based on the instance, not on their philosophical principles but the instance of disrespect, lies, etc, that's not censorship.
Whether someone is spreading a lie would still have to be proven. Notoriously very difficult to prove, but also known to be the easiest thing to say of all those who call others liars who disagree with their own views.
Not at all. Its always incumbent on the person making the claim to provide justification and substance for it. That's why a lie may spread but nobody has to disprove it, it can simply be labeled a lie, even if the liar is convinced its true.
In this blog environment, you don't know all that. The space can be anything in the mind of the person sitting alone in front of their computer, a theatre space, an art stage, a speaker's corner, a self-promoting performance, a podium, a fighting arena etc. etc. - But above all, the user must get the impression that it is a podium or open space with the character of a dialogue (for the sake of comments).
Exactly, this is why I initially said
Its not censorship if you can't comment or only certain people can comment on a post IF that's how the rules work. If everyone has property over who they allow to comment that's not censorship when you refuse certain people that permission, on your property.
If that impression doesn't have anything to suggest it, then there's no expectation being crushed.
How do you see the permanent exclusion (house ban, to remain in the linguistic jargon of the offline world) of a commentator? Would you say it already carries the potential of censorship?
It all depends on what the rules are. Was there any exceptions, was there any explicit or implicit promises of not being removed? The potential for censorship is penchant on a centralized authority, otherwise its Consensus.
I see the online space as a huge experimental field where people try to behave humanely without having direct contact with each other.
Online space is a broad term, its pointless to ascribe it any kind of characteristics like how people behave or expect.
I don't see any clear rules here. They are interpreted, I think. I am ambivalent about this, I am neither promoting rules nor do I reject them. I play by my own rules, so to speak.
Because you're looking at a hodgepodge of spaces and trying to characterize them as one field, but that's not fruitful for grasping any one of those spaces, let alone the entire gamut of them.
People only have their intellect at hand here. They don't really see anyone, nor do they hear or smell them, nor can they touch them or interpret their gestures and facial expressions. They miss the real atmosphere of a meeting with the individuals and the many.
Those things are as superficial as they are nuanced..
There may be something going on at a - how shall I put it - metaphysical level and in the cacophony of bloggers, commentators and the rest of the media din, there may be a field that can be helpful alongside all the unhelpful side effects.
Ideas, pointers, and knowledge, those things are that something. Immortal and more valuable than riches and sentiments.