3 ms·
That is debatable. Many would argue that censorship "by definition" involves the government (not the case here), and not merely the removal of content by someon
by FabHK 5y ago
That is debatable. Many would argue that censorship "by definition" involves the government (not the case here), and not merely the removal of content by someone, but prohibition for everyone to distribute it (not the case here as far as I can tell).
- naasking 5y agoIt literally satisfies the definition of censorship of three dictionaries I checked. Government censorship is the most egregious type we should all fear, but it's not the only type.
- gregors 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship Corporate censorship is a well understood form. Example - A news station refusing to publish stories that involves their parent or a sibling company is a common one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_censorship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_censorship Religious censorship is another well understood form. If you're saying "political censorship" is the only form of censorship that matters - it's debatable in the same way flat earth arguments are debatable.
- gregors 5y agoFollow up clarification: If your argument is "corporate censorship is benign when compared to political censorship" then I concede that is very debatable indeed.
- choward 5y ago> Many would argue that censorship "by definition" involves the government (not the case here) This does involve the government though. They literally called on Spotify to censor Rogan.