Originally Posted by
intuition
From the paper:
For our purposes, we operationalize “self-censorship” as any non-trivial content that users began to write on Facebook but ultimately did not post.
By that definition, I self-censor my FT posts all the time. I call it using good judgment as to what adds value and what does not. Those authors can call it self-censorship but that does not make it so. They misuse the language.
Jargon aside, I fail to see how adding a positive-only reader feedback could possibly result in a net reduction of high-value posts or a decrease in the average post quality (impossible to quantify, I know, but post quality is nevertheless a real attribute).