5 ms·

Is it sophistry? What is the definition of censorship? >Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be c

Is it sophistry? What is the definition of censorship? >Censorship is the suppression of free speech, public communication or other information which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by governments, media outlets, authorities or other groups or institutions. How does this not fit under said definition? Whether or not the act is done by a "public" or a "private" entity is irrelevant to the definition.

noarchy 10y ago
Many will say that "free speech" is a negative right, and as such it only means anything in the context of governments: in other words, it is something the government cannot take from you. Government can use force (the very real threat of jail, fines, etc) against you to suppress your speech. All Facebook can really do is prevent you from using their site, in the end. Naturally, if they work with a government, Facebook becomes a kind of arm of the government, but that's a separate context (but it is also what this article is about).
- colllectorof 10y ago
  >Government can use force (the very real threat of jail, fines, etc) against you to suppress your speech. Is free speech a thing worth keeping or not? If it is, than anything that realistically threatens it on a global scale needs to be kept in check. Now, let's not pretend that the only way to suppress speech is to use violence. Governments have a long history of using much subtler and sometimes more efficient tactics like blacklisting. For example, in Soviet Union many "inconvenient" people were free to live as they chose, except they had no chance in hell of getting decent housing or a good job, and were ostracized by many out of fear of "political contagion". So it's not about violence. It's about power. And companies like Google and Facebook have "soft" power rivaling many nation-states.
  - noarchy 10y ago
    I wasn't aware that Google or Facebook were required services. You can easily make the choice to use a different email or search provider, and can opt-out of social media. On the other hand, I am not aware of a way in which I can similarly opt-out of what the government of my country does, or even being forced to pay for what they're doing. There are concerns that I have about the level with which some of these companies cooperate with state actors, especially when we're unaware of it. When these companies become partners of government in secret, the state security apparatus is accordingly expanded in ways that do threaten us.
morgante 10y ago
Does that mean if I'm the editor of a newspaper I'm required to publish every letter to the editor I receive? Even if it's inarticulate neo-Nazi barf? Censorship is something the government does. The First Amendment doesn't apply to private entities. Private entities are not obliged to provide a platform for whatever opinion you feel like spewing. This topic has devolved into ridiculous flamewars.
- wu-ikkyu 10y ago
  >Censorship is something the government does. The First Amendment doesn't apply to private entities. The first amendment is not the definition of censorship.
- colllectorof 10y ago
  So, if the government asks nicely and Facebook "decides" to delete all your posts, you claim that's not censorship?
  - morgante 10y ago
    No... if the government is getting involved at all I definitely think it's censorship. The Chinese case is obviously censorship. I don't think anyone disputes that.
    - est 10y ago
      > if the government is getting involved How do you draw the line? What would you do if a politician ask you nicely?
      - morgante 10y ago
        "Fuck you, bring me a court order."
throwaway5752 10y ago
It's sophistry because under your definition it is impossible for Facebook to apply any form of control over the content on their platform, which they are clearly entitled to do. Your definition (accepting for a moment the opening paragraph from the Wikipedia article on censorship as a "definition") can be logically reduced to, "Suppression of information which may be objectionable by a group". That, for instance, describes HN comment and article moderation. It is so overly broad as to be able to describe practically anything.
bduerst 10y ago
Yeah, this is actually government censorship, under the guise of a state-owned company being given the tools to execute it. We're well past "shirt and shoes required" sophistry spin.

noarchy 10y ago

Many will say that "free speech" is a negative right, and as such it only means anything in the context of governments: in other words, it is something the government cannot take from you. Government can use force (the very real threat of jail, fines, etc) against you to suppress your speech. All Facebook can really do is prevent you from using their site, in the end. Naturally, if they work with a government, Facebook becomes a kind of arm of the government, but that's a separate context (but it is also what this article is about).

colllectorof 10y ago
>Government can use force (the very real threat of jail, fines, etc) against you to suppress your speech. Is free speech a thing worth keeping or not? If it is, than anything that realistically threatens it on a global scale needs to be kept in check. Now, let's not pretend that the only way to suppress speech is to use violence. Governments have a long history of using much subtler and sometimes more efficient tactics like blacklisting. For example, in Soviet Union many "inconvenient" people were free to live as they chose, except they had no chance in hell of getting decent housing or a good job, and were ostracized by many out of fear of "political contagion". So it's not about violence. It's about power. And companies like Google and Facebook have "soft" power rivaling many nation-states.
- noarchy 10y ago
  I wasn't aware that Google or Facebook were required services. You can easily make the choice to use a different email or search provider, and can opt-out of social media. On the other hand, I am not aware of a way in which I can similarly opt-out of what the government of my country does, or even being forced to pay for what they're doing. There are concerns that I have about the level with which some of these companies cooperate with state actors, especially when we're unaware of it. When these companies become partners of government in secret, the state security apparatus is accordingly expanded in ways that do threaten us.

morgante 10y ago

Does that mean if I'm the editor of a newspaper I'm required to publish every letter to the editor I receive? Even if it's inarticulate neo-Nazi barf? Censorship is something the government does. The First Amendment doesn't apply to private entities. Private entities are not obliged to provide a platform for whatever opinion you feel like spewing. This topic has devolved into ridiculous flamewars.

wu-ikkyu 10y ago
>Censorship is something the government does. The First Amendment doesn't apply to private entities. The first amendment is not the definition of censorship.
colllectorof 10y ago
So, if the government asks nicely and Facebook "decides" to delete all your posts, you claim that's not censorship?
- morgante 10y ago
  No... if the government is getting involved at all I definitely think it's censorship. The Chinese case is obviously censorship. I don't think anyone disputes that.
  - est 10y ago
    > if the government is getting involved How do you draw the line? What would you do if a politician ask you nicely?
    - morgante 10y ago
      "Fuck you, bring me a court order."

throwaway5752 10y ago

It's sophistry because under your definition it is impossible for Facebook to apply any form of control over the content on their platform, which they are clearly entitled to do. Your definition (accepting for a moment the opening paragraph from the Wikipedia article on censorship as a "definition") can be logically reduced to, "Suppression of information which may be objectionable by a group". That, for instance, describes HN comment and article moderation. It is so overly broad as to be able to describe practically anything.

bduerst 10y ago

Yeah, this is actually government censorship, under the guise of a state-owned company being given the tools to execute it. We're well past "shirt and shoes required" sophistry spin.