3 ms·

Also censorship has a specific denotation, i.e. that is is performed by an agent of the state, and specific connotations, i.e. that the censored is unable to ex

Also censorship has a specific denotation, i.e. that is is performed by an agent of the state, and specific connotations, i.e. that the censored is unable to express themselves in other ways (among other connotations). A private citizen deleting your comment on a webpage they own and administrate matches neither the denotation nor connotations of "censorship", except in the broadest theoretical reading. And that reading that would appear to prohibit any maintenance of comment sections whatsoever.

thaumasiotes 10y ago
> Also censorship has a specific denotation, i.e. that is is performed by an agent of the state This is not correct; TV networks have censors that operate internally. The government doesn't operate television censors; it is limited to punishing the networks after the fact. > A private citizen deleting your comment on a webpage they own and administrate matches neither the denotation nor connotations of "censorship", except in the broadest theoretical reading. And that reading that would appear to prohibit any maintenance of comment sections whatsoever. This is a confused argument; you seem to be proceeding from the premise that censorship is bad, and therefore a phenomenon which is not bad can't be censorship. And then that if it was censorship it somehow wouldn't be allowed. (Observe that the definition of "censorship" cannot in itself prohibit or mandate anything.) It's much more productive to agree on a definition of a term, and then argue over whether any particular example is good, bad, or a mixture of both, than to agree that a term must be good, and then argue over whether certain things are metaphysically able to fit under that term.
- meric 10y ago
  Thanks, I see this kind of (il)logic on HN a lot and it's infuriating. "I think X is bad, this is not bad, therefore not X" or "I think Y is good, since this is not good, this is not Y".
  - thaumasiotes 10y ago
    To be totally fair, the article endorses this premise, insofar as the only difference between "moderation" (in the sense of the piece) and "censorship" is that one is good and the other is bad.
- trowawee 10y ago
  1. When a television employee is censoring according to the rules of the state, they are operating as an agent of the state. 2. No, I'm not. I'm preceding from a definition of censorship as "the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts." Getting into "the dictionary say..." arguments is mostly boring, but most of the definitions do include some element of official imprimatur. Someone removing comments from their personal site fails to meet that official element.
  - thaumasiotes 10y ago
    Media censors take the rules of the state into account, but they are primarily concerned with pressure groups, not the state. They are most definitely not state agents; that would violate the constitution. The publisher of a website removing comments from it meets the same soft officialness standard as a newspaper declining to run articles on a particular topic, or a television network refusing to air episodes in which someone disagrees with the group but doesn't end up suffering for it (not an invented example, by the way -- that was a real element of a code governing children's cartoons).
    - trowawee 10y ago
      The majority of censors are working to prevent state censure; they are primarily concerned with the state. The primary work they do is removing profanities and indecent images at the behest of the state.
      - meric 10y ago
        "The primary work they do is removing profanities and indecent images at the behest of the state." I'm sure that's the primary function of the Chinese government's Central Propaganda Department. Censorship is when someone or some organisation who has power over you, control your ability to access information. From the government regulating the content internet users can access deleting content contrary to the government's goals, to administrators of personal websites deleting comments by people espousing views, considered disagreeable by the owner of said website.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
enraged_camel 10y ago
>>Also censorship has a specific denotation, i.e. that is is performed by an agent of the state Uh, no. Censorship means the suppression of speech or information. Said suppression does not require involvement from an agent of the state to qualify as censorship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
- trowawee 10y ago
  Suppressing speech requires the power to make you stop. Deleting a comment on my site isn't suppressing your speech, because you can still speak where you want to except for on my site.
  - enraged_camel 10y ago
    It suppresses speech on your site. That's what matters. Same with government-enforced censorship: North Korea can censor speech, but only within its borders. Just because North Koreans living in the US can speak out against Kim Jong-un doesn't mean that what North Korea is doing doesn't count as censorship.
gherkin0 10y ago
I think that's incorrectly narrowing the concept of "censorship" to mean only "government censorship," when other kinds exist (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship).
- trowawee 10y ago
  Mostly because, in an era where you can stand up a website on a worldwide communication network for less than $50, I kinda think that the definitions of censorship have narrowed.

thaumasiotes 10y ago

> Also censorship has a specific denotation, i.e. that is is performed by an agent of the state This is not correct; TV networks have censors that operate internally. The government doesn't operate television censors; it is limited to punishing the networks after the fact. > A private citizen deleting your comment on a webpage they own and administrate matches neither the denotation nor connotations of "censorship", except in the broadest theoretical reading. And that reading that would appear to prohibit any maintenance of comment sections whatsoever. This is a confused argument; you seem to be proceeding from the premise that censorship is bad, and therefore a phenomenon which is not bad can't be censorship. And then that if it was censorship it somehow wouldn't be allowed. (Observe that the definition of "censorship" cannot in itself prohibit or mandate anything.) It's much more productive to agree on a definition of a term, and then argue over whether any particular example is good, bad, or a mixture of both, than to agree that a term must be good, and then argue over whether certain things are metaphysically able to fit under that term.

meric 10y ago
Thanks, I see this kind of (il)logic on HN a lot and it's infuriating. "I think X is bad, this is not bad, therefore not X" or "I think Y is good, since this is not good, this is not Y".
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  To be totally fair, the article endorses this premise, insofar as the only difference between "moderation" (in the sense of the piece) and "censorship" is that one is good and the other is bad.
trowawee 10y ago
1. When a television employee is censoring according to the rules of the state, they are operating as an agent of the state. 2. No, I'm not. I'm preceding from a definition of censorship as "the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts." Getting into "the dictionary say..." arguments is mostly boring, but most of the definitions do include some element of official imprimatur. Someone removing comments from their personal site fails to meet that official element.
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  Media censors take the rules of the state into account, but they are primarily concerned with pressure groups, not the state. They are most definitely not state agents; that would violate the constitution. The publisher of a website removing comments from it meets the same soft officialness standard as a newspaper declining to run articles on a particular topic, or a television network refusing to air episodes in which someone disagrees with the group but doesn't end up suffering for it (not an invented example, by the way -- that was a real element of a code governing children's cartoons).
  - trowawee 10y ago
    The majority of censors are working to prevent state censure; they are primarily concerned with the state. The primary work they do is removing profanities and indecent images at the behest of the state.
    - meric 10y ago
      "The primary work they do is removing profanities and indecent images at the behest of the state." I'm sure that's the primary function of the Chinese government's Central Propaganda Department. Censorship is when someone or some organisation who has power over you, control your ability to access information. From the government regulating the content internet users can access deleting content contrary to the government's goals, to administrators of personal websites deleting comments by people espousing views, considered disagreeable by the owner of said website.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

enraged_camel 10y ago

>>Also censorship has a specific denotation, i.e. that is is performed by an agent of the state Uh, no. Censorship means the suppression of speech or information. Said suppression does not require involvement from an agent of the state to qualify as censorship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

trowawee 10y ago
Suppressing speech requires the power to make you stop. Deleting a comment on my site isn't suppressing your speech, because you can still speak where you want to except for on my site.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  It suppresses speech on your site. That's what matters. Same with government-enforced censorship: North Korea can censor speech, but only within its borders. Just because North Koreans living in the US can speak out against Kim Jong-un doesn't mean that what North Korea is doing doesn't count as censorship.

gherkin0 10y ago

I think that's incorrectly narrowing the concept of "censorship" to mean only "government censorship," when other kinds exist (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship).

trowawee 10y ago
Mostly because, in an era where you can stand up a website on a worldwide communication network for less than $50, I kinda think that the definitions of censorship have narrowed.