6 ms·

Discussion is terribly confused when 'censorship' is interpreted in this general sense. Censorship enforced by the state is something distinctly different from

by gwright 10y ago

Discussion is terribly confused when 'censorship' is interpreted in this general sense. Censorship enforced by the state is something distinctly different from editorial control exercised by private entities. When the single word can represent either concept (and other related concepts) ambiguity and confusion isn't far behind. I used to argue that 'censorship' should be interpreted as something done by governments and enforced by the legal system but that battle has been lost. Now the unqualified 'censorship' can mean just about any sort of content restrictions and as such is almost useless in its unqualified form.

braveo 10y ago
Your point was valid 20-30 years ago, but not anymore. Not when our bubbles are so largely defined by what we see online. These companies with all the eyeballs are now able to exert an influence on people's lives in a way that companies rarely have been able to do in the past (barring media, which the censorship claim was a bit deal). So it is that nowadays censorship on something like youtube has become a big deal.
- gwright 10y ago
  Who said it wasn't a concern? It is a concern but the nature of the concern is entirely different for editorial control vs. legal proscriptions. Your response is a nice example of the problem I was pointing out. You are conflating lots of different concerns by assuming that 'censorship' as an unqualified term accurately expresses the particular nuances of the issue you are concerned about. I'm just arguing for clarity in communication. Acting as if Google's editorial choices and speech codes at private universities and content filters on library computers and government efforts to squelch speech are all adequately summarized by the word "censorship" is harmful to clarity in communication.
  - braveo 10y ago
    If there's one thing I definitely don't care about, it's the exact definition of censorship. What I do care about is the idea behind censorship. I will not engage you in any conversation in which you try to use the definition to argue against the point I made. So if you would like to have a discussion about the ideas behind censorship and why the worry is valid for these large websites such as FB and Youtube, I'm all for it. But if you're going to repeat that the definition of the word precludes anything but governments, then I'm not interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIYKmos3-s&t=3s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIYKmos3-s&t=3s
ouid 10y ago
How is it "distinctly different"? The fact that you "lost the battle" to define it rigidly usually means that you couldn't provide a sufficiently compelling argument that it should have been. For instance, if the state, through asymmetric regulation, allows a platform to become a monopoly, and the platform engages in political censorship, then it IS government sponsored. It's stupid to restrict your definitions by intent. Treat the restriction of information as the problem itself, rather than the fact that it was done with any specific motive.
- gwright 10y ago
  It is distinctly different because the government can fine me or imprison me if I violate their legal proscriptions. I can't opt out of those restrictions. If Google blocks my content or otherwise refuses to host my content I have lots of other options. Your assertion that Google is a monopoly is this regard is not accurate.
  - ouid 10y ago
    if my business is forfeit, because it operates on the platform that the government allows to be a monopoly which youtube absolutely is then it serves the same function as a fine, frankly it doesn't matter what my leverage is, as long as it works. More importantly this doesn't address the concept, which is that it's dumb to attach motive to the definition of a problem. It's important when assessing criminal liability, but if you're just using it as an excuse to ignore the detrimental effects of censorship, which haven't changed, just because the mechanisms have, then you're just being profoundly counterproductive.
    - jimmywanger 10y ago
      > if my business is forfeit Forfeit is not the right word. Nobody is taking your business away from you, it's just not a profitable business. > monopoly which youtube absolutely is That is begging the question. There are plenty of sites that let you share video like youtube[0] [0] http://www.freemake.com/blog/top-7-free-video-sharing-sites/ http://www.freemake.com/blog/top-7-free-video-sharing-sites/
dragonwriter 10y ago
> Discussion is terribly confused when 'censorship' is interpreted in this general sense. It's the original sense. > Censorship enforced by the state is something distinctly different from editorial control exercised by private entities. Yes, government censorship is different in important ways than censorship by a publishing or distributing entity, but both are censorship (and they are also similar in important ways.) > When the single word can represent either concept (and other related concepts) ambiguity and confusion isn't far behind. Heavy water is different from drinking water in some quite important ways, but its not at all a problem that both are identified with the word "water", because we can use more than one word when the differentiating features are important to the discussion. > I used to argue that 'censorship' should be interpreted as something done by governments and enforced by the legal system but that battle has been lost. That battle was lost centuries ago. What the censor librorum does in granting, or denying, the nihil obstat has always been censorship, even where the Catholic Church is not an established Church and so is in now way part of the government. > Now the unqualified 'censorship' can mean just about any sort of content restrictions and as such is almost useless in its unqualified form. It has pretty much always meant that, and just because the general sense of censorship is not something you are interested in talking about doesn't mean it's not useful.
- gwright 10y ago
  I'm willing to concede that that 'censorship' has always been an expansive term. Perhaps my perspective is just a personal idiosyncrasy. But that is really ancillary to my point that in order to communicate clearly about the public policy issues involved it is important to avoid the generic use of the term because that obfuscates the arguments making it harder to explore the issues. In particular I think that in the US context, 1st Amendment proscriptions regarding freedom of speech and of the press are often implicitly assumed to be reasons why Google, for example, shouldn't be able to have a restrictive editorial policy. The negative aspects of censorship in the 1st Amendment sense are misleadingly attached to censorship in the editorial sense. Sure it is possible to talk about 'censorship' in the 'general sense' but that is uninteresting to me and I would argue isn't very helpful in understanding the distinct aspects of different types of 'censorship'.
madeofpalk 10y ago
> editorial control exercised by private entities. I would agree with you, but Youtube isn't a place where 'editorial' happens. Youtube isn't a TV channel or a blog with a set of editors. It's a free-for-all place for hosting videos. While I have no problem with Youtube removing content they don't like (it's their website, they're free to do what they like), it does go further than exercising 'editorial control'
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Choosing what you publish on your platform based on your own content preferences is exactly editorial control.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
Ronsenshi 10y ago
I'm working in media. We call editorial control "self-censorship".
cel1ne 10y ago
> Censorship enforced by the state is something distinctly different from editorial control exercised by private entities. I use the following analogy for the latter: Would you call it censorship if you decide to remove the graffiti someone spraypainted on your car? No one has the obligation to provide for unrestricted distribution of opinion/information. Especially not state-financed media, as they have a stake in education of their citizens.
- mattmanser 10y ago
  That's a very bad analogy, you should stop. The message of the grafitti is not what people care about, it's that it was painted in the first place. Your analogy only works if you have a big sign outside your house saying "Please paint my car".
  - nafey 10y ago
    Don't misconstrue what is being said. Imagine the sign saying "Please paint my car but we reserve the rights to remove anything we want". That's essentially what the YouTube user license says.
    - mattmanser 10y ago
      Graffiti is done without permission. What exactly am I misconstruing? That's exactly why the analogy is so bad.
      - cel1ne 10y ago
        Many user-licenses forbid things like spreading "hateful" (I actually don't like that word) content. Some users post such content, thereby doing something which they had no permission for. When that content is removed, in compliance with the agreement, they call that censorship. So my analogy still works. The difference is that on YouTube some "graffiti" are permitted while others aren't whereas on my car, none are permitted.
- Ralfp 10y ago
mtgx 10y ago
So what do you call it when the governments ask companies like Google and Facebook to "volunteer" (or else) to do censorship - and the companies do exactly that?
chmackenzie 10y ago
> 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. YouTube is acting as a media company while pretending to be a platform. They're engaging in censorship since they're removing things on political grounds. Now, if the rules were always "no vegan videos, no violence, only kittens," it would be a different story.
Baeocystin 10y ago
https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-the-first-amendment/ https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred... Read it. I promise it is worth your time.

by gwright 10y ago

braveo 10y ago

Your point was valid 20-30 years ago, but not anymore. Not when our bubbles are so largely defined by what we see online. These companies with all the eyeballs are now able to exert an influence on people's lives in a way that companies rarely have been able to do in the past (barring media, which the censorship claim was a bit deal). So it is that nowadays censorship on something like youtube has become a big deal.

gwright 10y ago
Who said it wasn't a concern? It is a concern but the nature of the concern is entirely different for editorial control vs. legal proscriptions. Your response is a nice example of the problem I was pointing out. You are conflating lots of different concerns by assuming that 'censorship' as an unqualified term accurately expresses the particular nuances of the issue you are concerned about. I'm just arguing for clarity in communication. Acting as if Google's editorial choices and speech codes at private universities and content filters on library computers and government efforts to squelch speech are all adequately summarized by the word "censorship" is harmful to clarity in communication.
- braveo 10y ago
  If there's one thing I definitely don't care about, it's the exact definition of censorship. What I do care about is the idea behind censorship. I will not engage you in any conversation in which you try to use the definition to argue against the point I made. So if you would like to have a discussion about the ideas behind censorship and why the worry is valid for these large websites such as FB and Youtube, I'm all for it. But if you're going to repeat that the definition of the word precludes anything but governments, then I'm not interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIYKmos3-s&t=3s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFIYKmos3-s&t=3s

ouid 10y ago

How is it "distinctly different"? The fact that you "lost the battle" to define it rigidly usually means that you couldn't provide a sufficiently compelling argument that it should have been. For instance, if the state, through asymmetric regulation, allows a platform to become a monopoly, and the platform engages in political censorship, then it IS government sponsored. It's stupid to restrict your definitions by intent. Treat the restriction of information as the problem itself, rather than the fact that it was done with any specific motive.

gwright 10y ago
It is distinctly different because the government can fine me or imprison me if I violate their legal proscriptions. I can't opt out of those restrictions. If Google blocks my content or otherwise refuses to host my content I have lots of other options. Your assertion that Google is a monopoly is this regard is not accurate.
- ouid 10y ago
  if my business is forfeit, because it operates on the platform that the government allows to be a monopoly which youtube absolutely is then it serves the same function as a fine, frankly it doesn't matter what my leverage is, as long as it works. More importantly this doesn't address the concept, which is that it's dumb to attach motive to the definition of a problem. It's important when assessing criminal liability, but if you're just using it as an excuse to ignore the detrimental effects of censorship, which haven't changed, just because the mechanisms have, then you're just being profoundly counterproductive.
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    > if my business is forfeit Forfeit is not the right word. Nobody is taking your business away from you, it's just not a profitable business. > monopoly which youtube absolutely is That is begging the question. There are plenty of sites that let you share video like youtube[0] [0] http://www.freemake.com/blog/top-7-free-video-sharing-sites/ http://www.freemake.com/blog/top-7-free-video-sharing-sites/

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Discussion is terribly confused when 'censorship' is interpreted in this general sense. It's the original sense. > Censorship enforced by the state is something distinctly different from editorial control exercised by private entities. Yes, government censorship is different in important ways than censorship by a publishing or distributing entity, but both are censorship (and they are also similar in important ways.) > When the single word can represent either concept (and other related concepts) ambiguity and confusion isn't far behind. Heavy water is different from drinking water in some quite important ways, but its not at all a problem that both are identified with the word "water", because we can use more than one word when the differentiating features are important to the discussion. > I used to argue that 'censorship' should be interpreted as something done by governments and enforced by the legal system but that battle has been lost. That battle was lost centuries ago. What the censor librorum does in granting, or denying, the nihil obstat has always been censorship, even where the Catholic Church is not an established Church and so is in now way part of the government. > Now the unqualified 'censorship' can mean just about any sort of content restrictions and as such is almost useless in its unqualified form. It has pretty much always meant that, and just because the general sense of censorship is not something you are interested in talking about doesn't mean it's not useful.

gwright 10y ago
I'm willing to concede that that 'censorship' has always been an expansive term. Perhaps my perspective is just a personal idiosyncrasy. But that is really ancillary to my point that in order to communicate clearly about the public policy issues involved it is important to avoid the generic use of the term because that obfuscates the arguments making it harder to explore the issues. In particular I think that in the US context, 1st Amendment proscriptions regarding freedom of speech and of the press are often implicitly assumed to be reasons why Google, for example, shouldn't be able to have a restrictive editorial policy. The negative aspects of censorship in the 1st Amendment sense are misleadingly attached to censorship in the editorial sense. Sure it is possible to talk about 'censorship' in the 'general sense' but that is uninteresting to me and I would argue isn't very helpful in understanding the distinct aspects of different types of 'censorship'.

madeofpalk 10y ago

> editorial control exercised by private entities. I would agree with you, but Youtube isn't a place where 'editorial' happens. Youtube isn't a TV channel or a blog with a set of editors. It's a free-for-all place for hosting videos. While I have no problem with Youtube removing content they don't like (it's their website, they're free to do what they like), it does go further than exercising 'editorial control'

dragonwriter 10y ago
Choosing what you publish on your platform based on your own content preferences is exactly editorial control.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

Ronsenshi 10y ago

I'm working in media. We call editorial control "self-censorship".

cel1ne 10y ago

> Censorship enforced by the state is something distinctly different from editorial control exercised by private entities. I use the following analogy for the latter: Would you call it censorship if you decide to remove the graffiti someone spraypainted on your car? No one has the obligation to provide for unrestricted distribution of opinion/information. Especially not state-financed media, as they have a stake in education of their citizens.

mattmanser 10y ago
That's a very bad analogy, you should stop. The message of the grafitti is not what people care about, it's that it was painted in the first place. Your analogy only works if you have a big sign outside your house saying "Please paint my car".
- nafey 10y ago
  Don't misconstrue what is being said. Imagine the sign saying "Please paint my car but we reserve the rights to remove anything we want". That's essentially what the YouTube user license says.
  - mattmanser 10y ago
    Graffiti is done without permission. What exactly am I misconstruing? That's exactly why the analogy is so bad.
    - cel1ne 10y ago
      Many user-licenses forbid things like spreading "hateful" (I actually don't like that word) content. Some users post such content, thereby doing something which they had no permission for. When that content is removed, in compliance with the agreement, they call that censorship. So my analogy still works. The difference is that on YouTube some "graffiti" are permitted while others aren't whereas on my car, none are permitted.
Ralfp 10y ago

mtgx 10y ago

So what do you call it when the governments ask companies like Google and Facebook to "volunteer" (or else) to do censorship - and the companies do exactly that?

chmackenzie 10y ago

> 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. YouTube is acting as a media company while pretending to be a platform. They're engaging in censorship since they're removing things on political grounds. Now, if the rules were always "no vegan videos, no violence, only kittens," it would be a different story.

Baeocystin 10y ago

https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-the-first-amendment/ https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred... Read it. I promise it is worth your time.