5 ms·

Ok, at some point we’re the boy who cried wolf with shouting “Censorship!” at everything. > Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or o

by awb 5y ago

Ok, at some point we’re the boy who cried wolf with shouting “Censorship!” at everything. > Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship “Suppress” is different from “restrict”. Suppression is “ to end or stop (something) by force” or “ to keep (something) secret : to not allow people to know about or see (something)” https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suppress https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suppress Please, let’s use “censorship” as the word was intended: to mean the total restriction of content. That’s why it’s usually governments who do it. Private companies can typically only do it if they have the exclusive rights to something and refuse to publish it. If someone is dropped from a platform, they’ve been de-platformed but by no definition of the word have they been censored. In order for Spotify to actually “censor” Rogan they would have to not publish his content while also not allowing it to be distributed in any form, anywhere else, ever. Presumably either party could cancel the contract and then Rogan would have numerous other platforms to publish on. So in some sense Rogan is self-censoring at best if he continues to honor his Spotify contract. Also, his podcast is only 1 medium. He could presumably still publish short form video/audio content outside of Spotify, or publish a book without their consent with any content of his choosing. Censorship by the definition of the word would mean banning content across all mediums, which Spotify does not have the authority to do. In any event, if he really wants to share information with the public Spotify alone cannot censor him and prevent him from doing that. All they can do is restrict access to his podcast. In this scenario, I think “restrict” or “inhibit” are more accurate and less provocative descriptions of what could happen.

skissane 5y ago
> Please, let’s use “censorship” as the word was intended: to mean the total restriction of content. In a faraway land, a new law has just been enacted: all public criticism of the government is now a crime. However, the law contains an exception – it will not apply in designated Official Government Criticism Zones, which will be established in convenient locations throughout the country. Would you say that, since government-critical content is not being totally restricted – it will remain legally permitted in government-designated locations – it isn't being censored?
- EL_Loco 5y ago
  Yes, it is being censored, because in most parts of said faraway land there is a total restriction of content. How about "you can't criticise the government anywhere, but we'll let you do it when you're alone inside your house, but only in the bathroom with locked doors, so it's not a 'total' restriction." Yes, this is censorship, and different from "well, this private company will restrict your message to the public on it's own platform because it goes against its policy, but you're free to publish your message on your own blog, write your own book, shout it out in the public square, etc."
  - skissane 5y ago
    > Yes, it is being censored, because in most parts of said faraway land there is a total restriction of content. Suppose instead, that the law said it was a crime to publicly criticise the government on weekends; but, Monday to Friday, government-critical speech is fully allowed. That's not a case of "most parts... there is a total restriction": the restriction only applies 28.57% of the time. But, on the contrary, if a government deliberately subjects certain points of view to restrictions which it does not impose on others, that still counts as censorship – even if the restrictions are not total, even if they don't rise to the level of "most places" or "most times". Is a private corporation doing the same thing "censorship" as well? That's a perennial debate. But I don't think looking at restriction-vs-suppression, total-vs-partial restriction, differing degrees of restriction, etc, is very useful in resolving that debate. Whatever the correct conclusion to that debate may be, I don't think it is going to be based on those kinds of distinctions.
- awb 5y ago
  Fair point. Maybe: Censorship is the suppression of content by someone other than the creator or legal owner in a free market such that the creation, distribution, purchase or consumption of the content by the public is impossible or unreasonably burdensome Basically trying to differentiate between a 1984 scenario (censorship) and someone buying a painting and not letting other people see it (not censorship).
  - 5y ago
slibhb 5y ago
From wikipedia, which you linked: > Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions and other controlling bodies. Seems like your source agrees with me (and I find your quibbling over "suppress" vs. "restrict" absurd). People who are trying to confuse the issue are uncomfortable with the fact that they are pro-censorship. Why not just admit it?
- awb 5y ago
  Lol, OK. Sorry but suppress and restrict are very different words with very different definitions. Restricting content on a single, privately-owned, non-monopolistic platform and total censorship (suppression) are two wildly different things. Imagine 1984, but the Ministry of Thought requires you to go to the store next door to buy the controversial book you want to read. Annoying yes, but doesn’t quite have the same zing to it. Censorship is a real problem with disastrous consequences throughout history. It’s definitely worth fighting censorship of ideas, this just isn’t censorship.
  - slibhb 5y ago
    I don't agree that censorship means "totally restrict". Your argument there is tendentious. > Restricting content on a single, privately-owned, non-monopolistic platform and total censorship (suppression) are two wildly different things. Yes but they both fall in the category of censorship. I'm not saying companies shouldn't be allowed to censor (I wrote: "sometimes, perhaps, censorship is called for"). I'm just saying it's still censorship. My view is that, in general, companies should not censor. Free speech is good.
    - EL_Loco 5y ago
      > My view is that, in general, companies should not censor. Free speech is good. Really? Should HN moderatos literally let every post go on unchecked? If someone starts posting links to a Kardashian selfie blog, or to NSFW stuff, why should HN allow it? It's NOT censorship, HN is in no way obligated to allow everything on its site. Free speech is good. Heck, it's awesome. You want to post NSFW or Kim Kardashian, go create a blog. It's pretty much free and you can reach the whole world.

by awb 5y ago

skissane 5y ago

> Please, let’s use “censorship” as the word was intended: to mean the total restriction of content. In a faraway land, a new law has just been enacted: all public criticism of the government is now a crime. However, the law contains an exception – it will not apply in designated Official Government Criticism Zones, which will be established in convenient locations throughout the country. Would you say that, since government-critical content is not being totally restricted – it will remain legally permitted in government-designated locations – it isn't being censored?

EL_Loco 5y ago
Yes, it is being censored, because in most parts of said faraway land there is a total restriction of content. How about "you can't criticise the government anywhere, but we'll let you do it when you're alone inside your house, but only in the bathroom with locked doors, so it's not a 'total' restriction." Yes, this is censorship, and different from "well, this private company will restrict your message to the public on it's own platform because it goes against its policy, but you're free to publish your message on your own blog, write your own book, shout it out in the public square, etc."
- skissane 5y ago
  > Yes, it is being censored, because in most parts of said faraway land there is a total restriction of content. Suppose instead, that the law said it was a crime to publicly criticise the government on weekends; but, Monday to Friday, government-critical speech is fully allowed. That's not a case of "most parts... there is a total restriction": the restriction only applies 28.57% of the time. But, on the contrary, if a government deliberately subjects certain points of view to restrictions which it does not impose on others, that still counts as censorship – even if the restrictions are not total, even if they don't rise to the level of "most places" or "most times". Is a private corporation doing the same thing "censorship" as well? That's a perennial debate. But I don't think looking at restriction-vs-suppression, total-vs-partial restriction, differing degrees of restriction, etc, is very useful in resolving that debate. Whatever the correct conclusion to that debate may be, I don't think it is going to be based on those kinds of distinctions.
awb 5y ago
Fair point. Maybe: Censorship is the suppression of content by someone other than the creator or legal owner in a free market such that the creation, distribution, purchase or consumption of the content by the public is impossible or unreasonably burdensome Basically trying to differentiate between a 1984 scenario (censorship) and someone buying a painting and not letting other people see it (not censorship).
- 5y ago

slibhb 5y ago

From wikipedia, which you linked: > Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient".[2][3][4] Censorship can be conducted by governments,[5] private institutions and other controlling bodies. Seems like your source agrees with me (and I find your quibbling over "suppress" vs. "restrict" absurd). People who are trying to confuse the issue are uncomfortable with the fact that they are pro-censorship. Why not just admit it?

awb 5y ago
Lol, OK. Sorry but suppress and restrict are very different words with very different definitions. Restricting content on a single, privately-owned, non-monopolistic platform and total censorship (suppression) are two wildly different things. Imagine 1984, but the Ministry of Thought requires you to go to the store next door to buy the controversial book you want to read. Annoying yes, but doesn’t quite have the same zing to it. Censorship is a real problem with disastrous consequences throughout history. It’s definitely worth fighting censorship of ideas, this just isn’t censorship.
- slibhb 5y ago
  I don't agree that censorship means "totally restrict". Your argument there is tendentious. > Restricting content on a single, privately-owned, non-monopolistic platform and total censorship (suppression) are two wildly different things. Yes but they both fall in the category of censorship. I'm not saying companies shouldn't be allowed to censor (I wrote: "sometimes, perhaps, censorship is called for"). I'm just saying it's still censorship. My view is that, in general, companies should not censor. Free speech is good.
  - EL_Loco 5y ago
    > My view is that, in general, companies should not censor. Free speech is good. Really? Should HN moderatos literally let every post go on unchecked? If someone starts posting links to a Kardashian selfie blog, or to NSFW stuff, why should HN allow it? It's NOT censorship, HN is in no way obligated to allow everything on its site. Free speech is good. Heck, it's awesome. You want to post NSFW or Kim Kardashian, go create a blog. It's pretty much free and you can reach the whole world.