Do you think maybe you might be a little bit biased here? Everyone is biased, to one degree or another. Subjective judgement can be quite a useful tool, actua

Do you think maybe you might be a little bit biased here? Everyone is biased, to one degree or another. Subjective judgement can be quite a useful tool, actually (but that's a much broader topic). How is it not censorship when somebody actively monitors what is posted on Twitter and makes a judgement on whether or not that post is appropriate? My own definition of censorship is any any kind of restrictions that are government-enforced (or enforced via proxies such as public universities). Editorial and/or community guidelines imposed by private media companies aren't "censorship", by this definition -- they're just that: editorial or community guidelines (which have always been in place, ever since people started investing the effort in creating mass copies of readable works via clay tablets, strands of knots, notches on wood, etc). What is appropriate and how does free speech equate to that in your mind? In my mind it all comes down to "not being an asshole." HN has a few additional guidelines, which I find eminently sensible and am happy to comply with. As do FB or this new Gab platform (both of which I'm less in favor of, and choose not to participate in). To each their own watering hole, as it were -- and that's about as fair as one can expect things to ever be (and about as close to the the libertarian paradise a lot of these alt-right folks are dreaming for, as we'll ever get).