5 ms·

Censorship is when the government, not private enterprises, stifle speech. When it a private entity, it’s called free market. This is a difficult concept for w

by 12xo 6y ago

Censorship is when the government, not private enterprises, stifle speech. When it a private entity, it’s called free market. This is a difficult concept for whiners to accept.

12xo 6y ago
So they downvote instead... lol
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
commandlinefan 6y ago
Actually, the title refers to it as "bias" rather than "censorship". "free market" is a larger concept than "bias", although you can be biased while still operating within the context of a free market. Still, censorship doesn't have anything to do with the government, although the U.S. explicitly forbids government censorship.
- 12xo 6y ago
  You mean bias like Rush Limbaugh or FoxNews bias? Where other ideas are not only never presented, they are openly mocked? And that happens mind you, on the PUBLICLY OWNED airwaves and spectrum....
  - inglor_cz 6y ago
    "airwaves and spectrum.... " If we really start considering media, a lot of taxpayer money worldwide went to broadband Internet infrastructure, so Twitter and friends do not play on a completely private field either.
    - 12xo 6y ago
      Ignorance is not a virtue. Learn about the history of American broadcast media and congressional oversight and get back to me...
      - dang 6y ago
        You've been breaking the site guidelines so egregiously and repeatedly that I think we have to ban this account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: to be clear, I'm not just talking about this comment, but similar ones like these, which I didn't see at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24518160 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24518160 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24517902 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24517902 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24517881 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24517881 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24517448 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24517448 You simply can't post like that to HN, no matter how wrong or ignorant others are, or you feel they are.
        12xo 6y ago
        Understood, its your prerogative and your choice. I feel that inference is not derogatory nor offensive, and I would rather be banned that be required to coddle those who are incapable of receiving or digesting criticism or engaging in difficult dialog. I come here for the intelligent and interesting discussions. Often times these are the types of discussions that are difficult for people as they contain ideas that challenge one's sense of self and place are the most uncomfortable. But without those challenges, people will never grow. Trees are strongest where the forces of nature are not buffered. People are as well. Take care
        dang 6y ago
        > Trees are strongest where the forces of nature are not buffered. People are as well. That may be true of trees and people but it is not true of internet communities. I think you're making a category error. The confrontational style you're talking about requires smaller, more cohesive environments to generate interesting outcomes. On a large, anonymous, open internet forum like HN, it just produces repetitive flamewar, then brain death, then heat death. Since the idea of HN is to be interesting (to the extent possible), we have no choice but to moderate this. I wish it were different—it would be a lot less work. Usually when someone posts the sort of argument that you did, I have found that it's possible to persuade them to follow the site guidelines once they understand that everything we do follows from trying to optimize for interestingness (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20optimiz%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). It's not about enforcing some tedious moral code. If you decide you buy that and want to use HN as intended in the future, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and let us know.
rayiner 6y ago
That’s literally not the definition of censorship: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship Otherwise the phrase “government censorship” would be redundant. And that’s why the Hollywood Production Codes were a kind of censorship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code And the idea that criticizing censorship when private organizations do it is “whining” is quite odd. Not everything bad is illegal. Lots of people criticized the Hollywood Production Codes as bad censorship, even though it was voluntary. Except back then it was liberals complaining that the Hollywood companies that controlled distribution were using their power to entrench conservative ideas and suppress liberal ones: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/05/17/cens-m17.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/05/17/cens-m17.html
- 12xo 6y ago
  You do realize that the literal meaning and the legal meaning are two separate things, right? Censorship in a privately owned entity is 100% legal. As is bias...
  - _a40s 6y ago
    rayiner answered you decisively and now you're just repeating part of his point.
  - dx87 6y ago
    I thought you said private entities can't censor? Now you're saying they can, but it's legal. So which is it?
    - 12xo 6y ago
      They obviously can choose what content they choose to host and display. That is their right as long as it is not discriminatory or in violation of US law. While that is the literal definition of censorship, the issue is not about a free market is it? Nope. Is about the Right whining that their hate is not allowed to be amplified, hence they call it censorship. They, not me, are the ones stating that this is a free speech issue. I state it is not. Explicitly not. Its a really simple concept. I am surprised you dont understand.
12xo 6y ago
I see there is a lot of work to do in educating people... No wonder the whiners are always crying, they are ignorant and willfully so... How sad. Downvote all you want

by 12xo 6y ago

Censorship is when the government, not private enterprises, stifle speech. When it a private entity, it’s called free market. This is a difficult concept for whiners to accept.

12xo 6y ago

So they downvote instead... lol

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

commandlinefan 6y ago

Actually, the title refers to it as "bias" rather than "censorship". "free market" is a larger concept than "bias", although you can be biased while still operating within the context of a free market. Still, censorship doesn't have anything to do with the government, although the U.S. explicitly forbids government censorship.

12xo 6y ago
You mean bias like Rush Limbaugh or FoxNews bias? Where other ideas are not only never presented, they are openly mocked? And that happens mind you, on the PUBLICLY OWNED airwaves and spectrum....
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  "airwaves and spectrum.... " If we really start considering media, a lot of taxpayer money worldwide went to broadband Internet infrastructure, so Twitter and friends do not play on a completely private field either.
  - 12xo 6y ago
    Ignorance is not a virtue. Learn about the history of American broadcast media and congressional oversight and get back to me...
    - dang 6y ago
      You've been breaking the site guidelines so egregiously and repeatedly that I think we have to ban this account. If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: to be clear, I'm not just talking about this comment, but similar ones like these, which I didn't see at the time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24518160 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24518160 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24517902 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24517902 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24517881 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24517881 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24517448 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24517448 You simply can't post like that to HN, no matter how wrong or ignorant others are, or you feel they are.
      - 12xo 6y ago
        Understood, its your prerogative and your choice. I feel that inference is not derogatory nor offensive, and I would rather be banned that be required to coddle those who are incapable of receiving or digesting criticism or engaging in difficult dialog. I come here for the intelligent and interesting discussions. Often times these are the types of discussions that are difficult for people as they contain ideas that challenge one's sense of self and place are the most uncomfortable. But without those challenges, people will never grow. Trees are strongest where the forces of nature are not buffered. People are as well. Take care
        dang 6y ago
        > Trees are strongest where the forces of nature are not buffered. People are as well. That may be true of trees and people but it is not true of internet communities. I think you're making a category error. The confrontational style you're talking about requires smaller, more cohesive environments to generate interesting outcomes. On a large, anonymous, open internet forum like HN, it just produces repetitive flamewar, then brain death, then heat death. Since the idea of HN is to be interesting (to the extent possible), we have no choice but to moderate this. I wish it were different—it would be a lot less work. Usually when someone posts the sort of argument that you did, I have found that it's possible to persuade them to follow the site guidelines once they understand that everything we do follows from trying to optimize for interestingness (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=curiosity%20optimiz%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...). It's not about enforcing some tedious moral code. If you decide you buy that and want to use HN as intended in the future, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and let us know.

rayiner 6y ago

That’s literally not the definition of censorship: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship Otherwise the phrase “government censorship” would be redundant. And that’s why the Hollywood Production Codes were a kind of censorship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code And the idea that criticizing censorship when private organizations do it is “whining” is quite odd. Not everything bad is illegal. Lots of people criticized the Hollywood Production Codes as bad censorship, even though it was voluntary. Except back then it was liberals complaining that the Hollywood companies that controlled distribution were using their power to entrench conservative ideas and suppress liberal ones: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/05/17/cens-m17.html https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/05/17/cens-m17.html

12xo 6y ago
You do realize that the literal meaning and the legal meaning are two separate things, right? Censorship in a privately owned entity is 100% legal. As is bias...
- _a40s 6y ago
  rayiner answered you decisively and now you're just repeating part of his point.
- dx87 6y ago
  I thought you said private entities can't censor? Now you're saying they can, but it's legal. So which is it?
  - 12xo 6y ago
    They obviously can choose what content they choose to host and display. That is their right as long as it is not discriminatory or in violation of US law. While that is the literal definition of censorship, the issue is not about a free market is it? Nope. Is about the Right whining that their hate is not allowed to be amplified, hence they call it censorship. They, not me, are the ones stating that this is a free speech issue. I state it is not. Explicitly not. Its a really simple concept. I am surprised you dont understand.

12xo 6y ago

I see there is a lot of work to do in educating people... No wonder the whiners are always crying, they are ignorant and willfully so... How sad. Downvote all you want