If you want to know who really has the power in this world just see how no one in public is allowed to speak on certain things, whether they are MPs in parliament, guests on TV, or otherwise. If I questioned Hamas "slaughtering 1400 Israeli civilians" in public or with coworkers, or worse yet, said you get what you deserve, I would 100% lose my job, and probably ruin my highly specialised career.
So presumably everyone else has to do a lot of sef-censorship as well?
I do censor myself to a certain degree. I think we're better off organising and protesting and the like than we are intentionally crossing the law and ending up imprisoned over stupid shit that we say on the internet.
For example, governments around the world are cracking down on "Hamas" propaganda being shared. You aren't going to save a single Palestinian by posting shit that attracts the attention of the feds but you might just remove yourself from the political equation for a long time and if that happens then you will find yourself subject to a high degree of ongoing surveillance from that point onwards.
That's not what Palestine needs but it certainly an assist for your government's agenda.
"Extremist" posting is a form of adventurism imo and we all know the failures of adventurism.
On the other hand, there are ways to post using plausible deniability. Weasel wording like "Some people say..." or "I've heard that..." isn't going to protect you from scrutiny from three-letter agencies but if it goes before a judge you're going to have a much better chance at defending yourself against charges.
There's also ways of talking around censorship and communicating what needs to be said without saying it. A good party or organisation member knows how to say things without explicitly saying them. Discretion is important to exercise and it needs to be exercised even amongst comrades.
For examples of ways to talk around things, on one post here somewhere there was discussion of a particular pact-signer who had a "drink" named after them. On it I commented "Remember what they say: on the hood always looks good but between the wheels when shit gets real". Is that walking a line? Sure is. But I don't think it's sufficient to bring heat down on me.
Likewise, there was a post of an Israeli police thug violently detaining a Palestinian child on a mainstream social media site. Some Zionist complimented the pig for being "so handsome". I responded by saying "His beret doesn't suit him. He'd look better with a🔻on his head."
Anyone who reads it knows exactly what I'm saying. AI probably isn't going to be able to flag it as anything worthy of admin attention. I'm not actually calling for any sort of action or making any threat, just expressing an opinion with plausible deniability that I can hide behind. But I'm still counter-trolling and saying what I want to, just in a format that should fly under the radar and not bring any undue heat down upon me.
I guess it's worth always assuming that there's at least one fed within organising spaces and radical spaces. The Spy Cops scandal in the UK is evidence that we're not always going to be able to detect a true comrade from an infiltrator. If you talk in a way which is intentionally unspecific, an infiltrator is going to struggle to collect dirt on you, especially anything actionable, and they might just press you to clarify your meaning which is immediately going to arouse my suspicions.