3 ms·

There is no sharp line between censorship, curation, and mere omission for unrelated reasons (e.g. limited shelf space, or unawareness by the curator that a wor

There is no sharp line between censorship, curation, and mere omission for unrelated reasons (e.g. limited shelf space, or unawareness by the curator that a work even exists). But this example falls close enough to the censorship side that it can be called as such. Because if this doesn't qualify, then it would take a literal government ban to count as censorship, which is a uselessly narrow criterion in our corporate-dominated society. Edit: To elaborate: To suppress a work, government censorship is simply not necessary. If Amazon refuses to list it, Youtube removes it and Google downranks it, Spotify and Netflix drop it, or Twitter or Facebook ban it, then it'll reach 1% or less of its audience than if it were treated generically (ironically this doesn't apply so much to Joe Rogan, since he already has an established audience. But it does for less known creators). Notice I've only listed 6 companies.

niemandhier 5y ago
I agree, but I would limit this reasoning to co,panties that essentially are infrastructure although policy makers refuse to treat them as such ( Google etc). Spotify imho is not in this category.
piva00 5y ago
It's always been like for platforms before the internet, no? I couldn't just publish whatever I wanted in print, there was always curation and editing. I couldn't spread whatever words I wanted on NYT, I'd have to write and publish on my own, people are still allowed that, there's no right to use media vehicles to project your voice.
- jevoten 5y ago
  You are correct that nothing illegal happened, no legal rights were violated (except possibly Rogan's contract, which is irrelevant to a discussion about principles). You may even be correct that it has always been like this - yes, media are far more consolidated than in the past*, but new entrants to the media landscape (Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc..), while even more consolidated, don't control their platforms as strictly as traditional media, so it's hard to judge if dissenting speech is more or less suppressed than in the past. But that doesn't make it not censorship, or morally justify concealing it. *In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. At the time, Ben Bagdikian was called "alarmist" for pointing this out [..] In 2004, Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth. - https://www.corporations.org/media/ https://www.corporations.org/media/
  - trs8080 5y ago
    Just to be clear here -- based on your response, you believe that the NYT refusing to publish your article is censorship?
    - jevoten 5y ago
      You want a clear-cut rule that can, without any context or nuance, categorize something as "censorship" or "not censorship"? I'm afraid I don't have one. Is that what it would take before you admit anything other than a government ban is censorship? To answer your question - if it was my article? No. But suppose I wasn't a random person on the internet, but a journalist, and, after spending a lot of time investigating and writing a story on, lets say, the health risks of bovine growth hormone, my employer makes me go through 83 rewrites over 8 months, then fires me, and never airs the story [1] - is it censorship then? Or what if I was hired to make a documentary on child abuse, but my employer decided that, "as a responsible broadcaster", they would censor it (sorry, delay publishing until after the election), to not inflame racial tensions [2]? Can we call either of these "censorship", without also calling the NYT's refusal to publish a random unaffiliated nobody's arbitrary article also "censorship"? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin#Lawsuit_against_WTVT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin#Lawsuit_ag... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/may/20/channel4.broadcasting1 https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/may/20/channel4.broad...

niemandhier 5y ago

I agree, but I would limit this reasoning to co,panties that essentially are infrastructure although policy makers refuse to treat them as such ( Google etc). Spotify imho is not in this category.

piva00 5y ago

It's always been like for platforms before the internet, no? I couldn't just publish whatever I wanted in print, there was always curation and editing. I couldn't spread whatever words I wanted on NYT, I'd have to write and publish on my own, people are still allowed that, there's no right to use media vehicles to project your voice.

jevoten 5y ago
You are correct that nothing illegal happened, no legal rights were violated (except possibly Rogan's contract, which is irrelevant to a discussion about principles). You may even be correct that it has always been like this - yes, media are far more consolidated than in the past*, but new entrants to the media landscape (Google, Twitter, Facebook, etc..), while even more consolidated, don't control their platforms as strictly as traditional media, so it's hard to judge if dissenting speech is more or less suppressed than in the past. But that doesn't make it not censorship, or morally justify concealing it. *In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. At the time, Ben Bagdikian was called "alarmist" for pointing this out [..] In 2004, Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth. - https://www.corporations.org/media/ https://www.corporations.org/media/
- trs8080 5y ago
  Just to be clear here -- based on your response, you believe that the NYT refusing to publish your article is censorship?
  - jevoten 5y ago
    You want a clear-cut rule that can, without any context or nuance, categorize something as "censorship" or "not censorship"? I'm afraid I don't have one. Is that what it would take before you admit anything other than a government ban is censorship? To answer your question - if it was my article? No. But suppose I wasn't a random person on the internet, but a journalist, and, after spending a lot of time investigating and writing a story on, lets say, the health risks of bovine growth hormone, my employer makes me go through 83 rewrites over 8 months, then fires me, and never airs the story [1] - is it censorship then? Or what if I was hired to make a documentary on child abuse, but my employer decided that, "as a responsible broadcaster", they would censor it (sorry, delay publishing until after the election), to not inflame racial tensions [2]? Can we call either of these "censorship", without also calling the NYT's refusal to publish a random unaffiliated nobody's arbitrary article also "censorship"? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin#Lawsuit_against_WTVT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin#Lawsuit_ag... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/may/20/channel4.broadcasting1 https://www.theguardian.com/media/2004/may/20/channel4.broad...