4 ms·

The word "censorship" is losing its meaning for me, as more and more things are falling under that label which weren't always considered "censorship". When I'm

The word "censorship" is losing its meaning for me, as more and more things are falling under that label which weren't always considered "censorship". When I'm in a conversation with someone, am I "censoring" them when I interject? When a teacher requires hands to be raised in a classroom, is that "censorship"? If I have to log into a website in order to comment, is that "censorship"? When a business doesn't allow another business to use its resources to make money, is that "censorship"? If everything is censorship, seems to me like nothing is.

oji0hub 6y ago
If we have a large forum and someone decides who gets to speak, that is censorship. That will allow whoever is in charge to shape peoples perception of reality.
- p1necone 6y ago
  This is literally every online forum. Every single one has moderation. You just can't have a reasonable experience without it.
- TameAntelope 6y ago
  I propose we reserve the word "censorship" for situations where an idea is effectively stopped from propagation as the result of the decisions of the people who would be negatively impacted by that idea. Specific expressions getting removed shouldn't be considered "censorship", but an entire concept being purged systemically across a culture for the benefit of the group executing the purge would fall into my proposed definition. Continuing to label specific content removal as "censorship" is unhelpful, because I want to be extremely alarmed when I hear the word, but I'm unable to behave that way currently, because things like this submission try to co-opt the term for something that clearly isn't even approaching the same degree of oppression.
bitcharmer 6y ago
> If I have to log into a website in order to comment, is that "censorship"? There are plenty of news outlets where I'm unable to leave a comment under a news article, because the only supported option is have a FB account which I don't have. I don't feel censored but I'm definitely silenced.
- jitans 6y ago
  And why don't you make a FB account?
  - bumbada 6y ago
    Because he does not want to send Facebook every comment he makes on the internet? Specially your political ideas and opinions. I don't have a FB either. For me it is like the Stasi, tracking everything you do, only way more detailed. When I talk with friends, my exact opinions are forgotten over time, while FB will record your exact opinion on September 20th, at 8:12pm for your entire life.
    - fingerlocks 6y ago
      So does HN, but here you are.
      - bitcharmer 6y ago
        HN doesn't require my phone number to register nor does it track my web browsing habits.
  - adolph 6y ago
    Is this question an example of the “loaded question” logical fallacy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
    - secondcoming 6y ago
      No.
tehjoker 6y ago
I don't understand how anyone can see one of the tech monopolies as just another business from which one could simply move to another platform [0]. These places are de facto public commons at this point and are a significant factor in reaching a broad audience. Removal from the platforms does amount to censorship if the reason is a mere political disagreement. [0] c.f. the fate of Parler which was assassinated overnight by a collaboration of the tech monopolies, but was celebrated by the public because of the bad reputation it accumulated.
- TameAntelope 6y ago
  What monopoly, exactly, does Facebook actually have here? Are you suggesting they control an overwhelming share of... online marketplaces?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - cccc4all 6y ago
    Facebook owns mobile advertising space. Their ad targeting data is part of duopoly with google, which owns search targeting data. Facebook and google both needs to be broken up with anti-trust rules.
    - TameAntelope 6y ago
      How is that relevant here, though? Facebook's marketplace is hardly WikiLeaks' only viable option to sell its merchandise, and in fact is probably not even the wisest choice. Am I now unable to purchase WikiLeaks merchandise?
- dleslie 6y ago
  They are not de facto public commons, they are privately controlled advertisement channels. It is _very dangerous_ to consider them as anything other than an effective means by which to drive advertisement sales.
dooglius 6y ago
It's about selectivity. If you're in a group conversation and you always interject when a certain person starts to speak, that seems like censorship. If a teacher requires one student to always raise his hand, but anyone else can shout out questions, that seems like censorship.
stale2002 6y ago
> If everything is censorship, seems to me like nothing is. I will give a definition that counters this. Censorship is not a binary thing. It is a spectrum. Specially, the definition of censorship that I would use, would be "Any action at all, that chills someone else's speech. But the more power and effective the action is, the more that it is a problem". So, government censorship is a problem not because it is the government doing it specifically, but it is a problem because the government has a lot of power. To give another example, if a very power criminal organization was threatening to kill anyone who said bad things about it, and these threats were real and worked to chill people speech, then I would consider this to be possibly as bad as the government doing it. To address your other example, the main question that I would ask is how powerful is the action. You refusing to listen to someone doesn't very effectively chill speech. But actions such as very large and powerful companies censoring things is much more effective than a teacher censoring things, and thus a larger problem, although not as big of a problem as if someone threatened people, en mass, with violence. To address the Facebook example, the question that I would ask is "How powerful is facebook, and how effectively are they able to wield that power to chill any form of speech? Are they very effective at controlling speech or not very effective at it?"

oji0hub 6y ago

If we have a large forum and someone decides who gets to speak, that is censorship. That will allow whoever is in charge to shape peoples perception of reality.

p1necone 6y ago
This is literally every online forum. Every single one has moderation. You just can't have a reasonable experience without it.
TameAntelope 6y ago
I propose we reserve the word "censorship" for situations where an idea is effectively stopped from propagation as the result of the decisions of the people who would be negatively impacted by that idea. Specific expressions getting removed shouldn't be considered "censorship", but an entire concept being purged systemically across a culture for the benefit of the group executing the purge would fall into my proposed definition. Continuing to label specific content removal as "censorship" is unhelpful, because I want to be extremely alarmed when I hear the word, but I'm unable to behave that way currently, because things like this submission try to co-opt the term for something that clearly isn't even approaching the same degree of oppression.

bitcharmer 6y ago

> If I have to log into a website in order to comment, is that "censorship"? There are plenty of news outlets where I'm unable to leave a comment under a news article, because the only supported option is have a FB account which I don't have. I don't feel censored but I'm definitely silenced.

jitans 6y ago
And why don't you make a FB account?
- bumbada 6y ago
  Because he does not want to send Facebook every comment he makes on the internet? Specially your political ideas and opinions. I don't have a FB either. For me it is like the Stasi, tracking everything you do, only way more detailed. When I talk with friends, my exact opinions are forgotten over time, while FB will record your exact opinion on September 20th, at 8:12pm for your entire life.
  - fingerlocks 6y ago
    So does HN, but here you are.
    - bitcharmer 6y ago
      HN doesn't require my phone number to register nor does it track my web browsing habits.
- adolph 6y ago
  Is this question an example of the “loaded question” logical fallacy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
  - secondcoming 6y ago
    No.

tehjoker 6y ago

I don't understand how anyone can see one of the tech monopolies as just another business from which one could simply move to another platform [0]. These places are de facto public commons at this point and are a significant factor in reaching a broad audience. Removal from the platforms does amount to censorship if the reason is a mere political disagreement. [0] c.f. the fate of Parler which was assassinated overnight by a collaboration of the tech monopolies, but was celebrated by the public because of the bad reputation it accumulated.

TameAntelope 6y ago
What monopoly, exactly, does Facebook actually have here? Are you suggesting they control an overwhelming share of... online marketplaces?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- cccc4all 6y ago
  Facebook owns mobile advertising space. Their ad targeting data is part of duopoly with google, which owns search targeting data. Facebook and google both needs to be broken up with anti-trust rules.
  - TameAntelope 6y ago
    How is that relevant here, though? Facebook's marketplace is hardly WikiLeaks' only viable option to sell its merchandise, and in fact is probably not even the wisest choice. Am I now unable to purchase WikiLeaks merchandise?
dleslie 6y ago
They are not de facto public commons, they are privately controlled advertisement channels. It is _very dangerous_ to consider them as anything other than an effective means by which to drive advertisement sales.

dooglius 6y ago

It's about selectivity. If you're in a group conversation and you always interject when a certain person starts to speak, that seems like censorship. If a teacher requires one student to always raise his hand, but anyone else can shout out questions, that seems like censorship.

stale2002 6y ago

> If everything is censorship, seems to me like nothing is. I will give a definition that counters this. Censorship is not a binary thing. It is a spectrum. Specially, the definition of censorship that I would use, would be "Any action at all, that chills someone else's speech. But the more power and effective the action is, the more that it is a problem". So, government censorship is a problem not because it is the government doing it specifically, but it is a problem because the government has a lot of power. To give another example, if a very power criminal organization was threatening to kill anyone who said bad things about it, and these threats were real and worked to chill people speech, then I would consider this to be possibly as bad as the government doing it. To address your other example, the main question that I would ask is how powerful is the action. You refusing to listen to someone doesn't very effectively chill speech. But actions such as very large and powerful companies censoring things is much more effective than a teacher censoring things, and thus a larger problem, although not as big of a problem as if someone threatened people, en mass, with violence. To address the Facebook example, the question that I would ask is "How powerful is facebook, and how effectively are they able to wield that power to chill any form of speech? Are they very effective at controlling speech or not very effective at it?"