4 ms·

Censorship is government action. Private companies that allow you to reach millions of people are offering you the ability to use their service. It's not censo

Censorship is government action. Private companies that allow you to reach millions of people are offering you the ability to use their service. It's not censorship when they don't allow you to use their service (and until today, they haven't stopped much), it's terms of service. If I invite you to my house and you eat my dog's food, I have the right to tell you to leave. The movement wouldn't be what it is today without YT, so this censorship stuff is too much.

johnjj257 5y ago
No that's just govt. Censorship vs regular censorship. Moderation is the exact same thing they can both do it. Just because it isn't the government doesn't mean they aren't censoring. Censorship is NOT just government action.
robbrown451 5y ago
Why do you think censorship must be government action? Is there a definition posted anywhere that says this? I've long seen it used to refer to, for instance, TV network censors. And every online dictionary I can find allows for entities other than government to be referred to as censoring.
ipaddr 5y ago
Censorship is not a government action. It is literally filtering content and anyone can. You can censor yourself, a company could censor a band and change lyrics. They run a platform that practices censorship. It is legal. Trying to say it is okay because they are a private entity doesn't wash and they should be called out. We could even band together and censor them.
harshreality 5y ago
That libertarian/conservative talking point is often misstated, which intentionally or not becomes a red herring. Their claim isn't (or shouldn't be) that Youtube or Facebook or Twitter, in taking actions like these, aren't engaging in censorship. Their claim is that it's legal and not a violation of free speech (1A in the US), i.e. it's not government censorship, because that only applies when government is taking the actions. There are several problems with this, outlined in Clarence Thomas's recent concurring opinion in Biden v. Knight. Dominant communications platforms are essentially part of the public square, and two well-established legal principles could come into play to restrict their actions: public accommodations and common carriers. There's the additional problem that government is influencing how social media companies police content, not only indirectly through fear of retribution, but even directly. One instance that recently got media attention: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/07/15/psaki_were_flagging_problematic_posts_for_facebook_that_spread_disinformation.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/07/15/psaki_wer...

johnjj257 5y ago

No that's just govt. Censorship vs regular censorship. Moderation is the exact same thing they can both do it. Just because it isn't the government doesn't mean they aren't censoring. Censorship is NOT just government action.

robbrown451 5y ago

Why do you think censorship must be government action? Is there a definition posted anywhere that says this? I've long seen it used to refer to, for instance, TV network censors. And every online dictionary I can find allows for entities other than government to be referred to as censoring.

ipaddr 5y ago

Censorship is not a government action. It is literally filtering content and anyone can. You can censor yourself, a company could censor a band and change lyrics. They run a platform that practices censorship. It is legal. Trying to say it is okay because they are a private entity doesn't wash and they should be called out. We could even band together and censor them.

harshreality 5y ago

That libertarian/conservative talking point is often misstated, which intentionally or not becomes a red herring. Their claim isn't (or shouldn't be) that Youtube or Facebook or Twitter, in taking actions like these, aren't engaging in censorship. Their claim is that it's legal and not a violation of free speech (1A in the US), i.e. it's not government censorship, because that only applies when government is taking the actions. There are several problems with this, outlined in Clarence Thomas's recent concurring opinion in Biden v. Knight. Dominant communications platforms are essentially part of the public square, and two well-established legal principles could come into play to restrict their actions: public accommodations and common carriers. There's the additional problem that government is influencing how social media companies police content, not only indirectly through fear of retribution, but even directly. One instance that recently got media attention: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/07/15/psaki_were_flagging_problematic_posts_for_facebook_that_spread_disinformation.html https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/07/15/psaki_wer...