3 ms·

That's being overly reductive; akin to stating that Christian Mingle censors Atheist or Muslim views because they focus on a Christian market. Or that Steam cen

That's being overly reductive; akin to stating that Christian Mingle censors Atheist or Muslim views because they focus on a Christian market. Or that Steam censors by not approving all content. At that point "censorship" is diluted to have no meaniong beyond curation. The company is choosing to narrow its market focus; it tried to facilitate person's B and C, but C is forcing them to choose. That's curation, not censorship.

stale2002 6y ago
> That's being overly reductive No it isn't. It is literally the definition that is on wikipedia. That is a very good authority on definitions for things. > At that point "censorship" is diluted to have no meaning beyond curation. Sure it does. The meaning is quite clear in the article, which is a relevant authority on the issue. Private companies can censor people. That is the definition, and the relevant authorities on the matter agree that it is. Most definitions that you find with agree with me that private companies can censor people. This is not controversial, and most definitions agree with me.
- dleslie 6y ago
  Private companies engage in censorship only when they have a controlling interest on a form of communication, and that is the sole purview of monopolies.
  - stale2002 6y ago
    > and that is the sole purview of monopolies. No actually. According to the wikipedia definition on censorship, there is no requirement to be a monopoly, in order for a private business to engage in censorship. Instead, according to the actual definition of censorship, censorship is any sort of "suppression of speech, public communication, or other information", and private, non-monopolies can absolutely engage in censorship. You are simply incorrect about what the definition of censorship is. The actual definitions, that are all over the place, do not require a monopoly.
    - dleslie 6y ago
      A company cannot fully suppress communications if it does not control the communications medium. There is no company which has a total monopoly on any form of communications in the USA. Material is not effectively made unavailable without total suppression.

stale2002 6y ago

> That's being overly reductive No it isn't. It is literally the definition that is on wikipedia. That is a very good authority on definitions for things. > At that point "censorship" is diluted to have no meaning beyond curation. Sure it does. The meaning is quite clear in the article, which is a relevant authority on the issue. Private companies can censor people. That is the definition, and the relevant authorities on the matter agree that it is. Most definitions that you find with agree with me that private companies can censor people. This is not controversial, and most definitions agree with me.

dleslie 6y ago
Private companies engage in censorship only when they have a controlling interest on a form of communication, and that is the sole purview of monopolies.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > and that is the sole purview of monopolies. No actually. According to the wikipedia definition on censorship, there is no requirement to be a monopoly, in order for a private business to engage in censorship. Instead, according to the actual definition of censorship, censorship is any sort of "suppression of speech, public communication, or other information", and private, non-monopolies can absolutely engage in censorship. You are simply incorrect about what the definition of censorship is. The actual definitions, that are all over the place, do not require a monopoly.
  - dleslie 6y ago
    A company cannot fully suppress communications if it does not control the communications medium. There is no company which has a total monopoly on any form of communications in the USA. Material is not effectively made unavailable without total suppression.