I was saying censoring LGBT material, not STI prevention literature, might reduce STI transmission rates.

I was responding to one speculation, with another, to show that the parent speculation — that censorship of LGBT information would lead to more death by denying sexually active people in the LGBT community with information on STI prevention drugs — was over simplifying the factors involved, to present their speculation as a matter of fact.

If my comment — which I disclosed as mere speculation — is to be censored on those grounds, the parent comment should definitely have been.

But after re-reading my comment, I see now that it could be read as me suggesting that censorship of STI prevention information could lead to less male-to-male sexual contact and thereby reduce STI infection rates and with it deaths. That wasn't what I intended to convey. I was referring to censorship of LGBT material in general potentially having that effect.

So… censorship. Just because you don’t like what someone said does not make what they said wrong. Flagging comments is censorship. Plain and simple. You’re trying to remove opinions you don’t agree with.

“The algorithm decided it. That’s not censorship.”

“The majority decided it. That’s not censorship.”

“The law decided it. That’s not censorship.”

“The users decided it. That’s not censorship.”

“You were just scared your neighbors would kill you, so you didn’t say anything. That’s not censorship.”

I’m having trouble drawing lines.