2 ms·

Ok but then how are we to distinguish Corporate Censorship from Corporation Chooses Not To Publish My Opinion? If your minority opinion on Covid is welcome on

by biztos 6y ago

Ok but then how are we to distinguish Corporate Censorship from Corporation Chooses Not To Publish My Opinion? If your minority opinion on Covid is welcome on Platform A, but banned from much larger Platform B, both of them being private entities, does this count? If it counts, how is that different from the New York Times refusing to publish my dissenting opinion on the local galleries, which I am free to publish on my universally accessible blog? If it’s just that “not publishing what I want them to publish” counts as censorship then (as per my first, unloved comment) I think it’s a perversion of the term. Many places have real censorship, as in “publish this idea and you go to jail.” If I’ve got it wrong, please, enlighten me.

s1artibartfast 6y ago
I agree that there is a blurry line between corporate censorship and corporate choice. One way to draw a distinction is if the the corporation is typically in the business of publishing opinions, and intentionally suppressing of a specific idea to meet a goal or objective. >If your minority opinion on Covid is welcome on Platform A, but banned from much larger Platform B, both of them being private entities, does this count? Censorship does not have to be universal. For example, some speech is banned in churches but permissible in public. >f it counts, how is that different from the New York Times refusing to publish my dissenting opinion on the local galleries, which I am free to publish on my universally accessible blog? In your example. if the New York Times normally allowed the public to post gallery reviews, but refused yours specifically because it fell into a category they want to suppressed, this would be considered censorship. >If it’s just that “not publishing what I want them to publish” counts as censorship then (as per my first, unloved comment) I think it’s a perversion of the term. Many places have real censorship, as in “publish this idea and you go to jail.” I agree that many places enforce censorship with severe punishments, but punishment is not central to the idea of censorship. For example, an effort could be made to destroy all evidence of Oscar Wilde's Homosexuality. This would certainly be an act of censorship, even if Wilde is not harmed, or even if those who resist are not punished. >If I’ve got it wrong, please, enlighten me. Wikipedia has a decent summary of different types of censorship if you scroll past the political section [1]. Some examples of corporate, religious, and self censorship. This utilization of the word is not new and consistent with what I have said. I think that the idea that censorship can only be imposed by a state under threat of punishment is an inaccurate and restrive view. That said, if you feel strongly that this is the wrong definition, you can just substitute the word censor with suppress when whenever you read it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
- biztos 6y ago
  Thanks, I will give this some thought and if appropriate modify my usage.

by biztos 6y ago

s1artibartfast 6y ago

I agree that there is a blurry line between corporate censorship and corporate choice. One way to draw a distinction is if the the corporation is typically in the business of publishing opinions, and intentionally suppressing of a specific idea to meet a goal or objective. >If your minority opinion on Covid is welcome on Platform A, but banned from much larger Platform B, both of them being private entities, does this count? Censorship does not have to be universal. For example, some speech is banned in churches but permissible in public. >f it counts, how is that different from the New York Times refusing to publish my dissenting opinion on the local galleries, which I am free to publish on my universally accessible blog? In your example. if the New York Times normally allowed the public to post gallery reviews, but refused yours specifically because it fell into a category they want to suppressed, this would be considered censorship. >If it’s just that “not publishing what I want them to publish” counts as censorship then (as per my first, unloved comment) I think it’s a perversion of the term. Many places have real censorship, as in “publish this idea and you go to jail.” I agree that many places enforce censorship with severe punishments, but punishment is not central to the idea of censorship. For example, an effort could be made to destroy all evidence of Oscar Wilde's Homosexuality. This would certainly be an act of censorship, even if Wilde is not harmed, or even if those who resist are not punished. >If I’ve got it wrong, please, enlighten me. Wikipedia has a decent summary of different types of censorship if you scroll past the political section [1]. Some examples of corporate, religious, and self censorship. This utilization of the word is not new and consistent with what I have said. I think that the idea that censorship can only be imposed by a state under threat of punishment is an inaccurate and restrive view. That said, if you feel strongly that this is the wrong definition, you can just substitute the word censor with suppress when whenever you read it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

biztos 6y ago
Thanks, I will give this some thought and if appropriate modify my usage.