3 ms·

> To deem his punishment censorship — even though it is on a private platform that is not the public square — is exactly what he cynically hopes we will do. Wi

> To deem his punishment censorship — even though it is on a private platform that is not the public square — is exactly what he cynically hopes we will do. Wikipedia defines censorship as "the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information"[1] and says that it "can be conducted by governments, private institutions, and other controlling bodies"[1]. So that facebook is a private platform is irrelevant. And even if Trump cynically hopes that we call what happened here by its name, we should do so anyway. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship

denton-scratch 5y ago
Wikipedia is not reliable, and not authoritative.
- amadeuspagel 5y ago
  Do you have a better definition from a more reliable and authorative source?
  - denton-scratch 5y ago
    The First Amendment to the US Constitution constrains the limits that laws can impose on free expression. That's one definition. I don't think I need an authoritative source to assert that you can't stand on my lawn with a megaphone and yell at passers by; and if you guest on my blog, I can moderate your posts if I don't like them. If that's censorship, then it's perfectly legitimate, when done by a private individual who is responsible for the channel.
    - apostacy 5y ago
      > The First Amendment to the US Constitution constrains the limits that laws can impose on free expression. That's one definition. One reason hat this is an unreasonably narrow definition is because it implies that censorship can only be done in places where the United States legislature has jurisdiction. Does this mean that censorship is impossible in Canada, because they are not subject to the First Amendment? Nothing done in Canada can technically violate the First Amendment, so I guess that means that we have no right to complain about suppression of people expressing themselves there. I usually read this argument as either very misinformed, or bad faith sophistry. > I don't think I need an authoritative source to assert that you can't stand on my lawn with a megaphone and yell at passers by; and if you guest on my blog, I can moderate your posts if I don't like them. If that's censorship, then it's perfectly legitimate, when done by a private individual who is responsible for the channel. Those examples you gave are complete straw men. Nobody is saying that you should be compelled to allow people to scream at your on your own lawn, or that your small personal blog should be compelled to allow anyone to comment. Companies like Facebook and YouTube are bigger and more influential than any other media platforms in history. And yet they are far less regulated than any newspaper or cable television network.

denton-scratch 5y ago

Wikipedia is not reliable, and not authoritative.

amadeuspagel 5y ago
Do you have a better definition from a more reliable and authorative source?
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  The First Amendment to the US Constitution constrains the limits that laws can impose on free expression. That's one definition. I don't think I need an authoritative source to assert that you can't stand on my lawn with a megaphone and yell at passers by; and if you guest on my blog, I can moderate your posts if I don't like them. If that's censorship, then it's perfectly legitimate, when done by a private individual who is responsible for the channel.
  - apostacy 5y ago
    > The First Amendment to the US Constitution constrains the limits that laws can impose on free expression. That's one definition. One reason hat this is an unreasonably narrow definition is because it implies that censorship can only be done in places where the United States legislature has jurisdiction. Does this mean that censorship is impossible in Canada, because they are not subject to the First Amendment? Nothing done in Canada can technically violate the First Amendment, so I guess that means that we have no right to complain about suppression of people expressing themselves there. I usually read this argument as either very misinformed, or bad faith sophistry. > I don't think I need an authoritative source to assert that you can't stand on my lawn with a megaphone and yell at passers by; and if you guest on my blog, I can moderate your posts if I don't like them. If that's censorship, then it's perfectly legitimate, when done by a private individual who is responsible for the channel. Those examples you gave are complete straw men. Nobody is saying that you should be compelled to allow people to scream at your on your own lawn, or that your small personal blog should be compelled to allow anyone to comment. Companies like Facebook and YouTube are bigger and more influential than any other media platforms in history. And yet they are far less regulated than any newspaper or cable television network.