I have a philsophical defence of this not being censorship: The essence of censorship is to restrict access to information. This is harmful and dangeroues when

I have a philsophical defence of this not being censorship: The essence of censorship is to restrict access to information. This is harmful and dangeroues when powerful people use it to hide inconvinient information. Blocking a website is not necessarily censorship. Blocking an online casino, or a place to buy drugs, this is not censorship. Now where does blocking facebook fall in this distinction. If you block it to hide information, then it is censorship. If you block it because of privacy reasons it is not censorship. This case is not as clear cut as either of those examples, but I would still say the motivation is not to hide information, and so not call it censorship. But having said that, this is an action by a small isolated ISP. They are completely powerless compared to facebook or twitter. They only thing this amounts to is a symbolic statement of disapproval. It is not surprising that they are now backtracking as if they kept it up, they would have started losing customers. Finally if ISP's start blocking websites it will quickly turn ugly, and I hope this does not happen.