4 ms·

Lol, OK. Sorry but suppress and restrict are very different words with very different definitions. Restricting content on a single, privately-owned, non-monopo

by 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.
- awb 5y ago
  > I don't agree that censorship means "totally restrict". Can you point me to a definition of censorship that supports your view? Your definition is so broad that anyone who declines to share anything ever is “censoring”. At that point we need a new word for the action of totally suppressing content everywhere and declining to share content to distinguish between two very different events with two very different outcomes throughout history. Or I guess a qualifier like “total censorship” vs. “limited distribution censorship”. At this point why not just use the words “censorship” and “restricted” as originally intended?
  - slibhb 5y ago
    The way you're using the words "suppress" and "restricted" is bizarre semantic bullshit designed to support your argument. The definition you linked to supports my argument. > Your definition is so broad that anyone who declines to share anything ever is “censoring”. No it's not. Individuals are not censoring when they decline to share something. A company or government may be, depending on why.
    - awb 5y ago
      > The definition you linked to supports my argument. I honestly don’t see how and if you decide to not explain then I guess we’re done. Disney can censor their content because they own it and it can’t legally be reproduced or redistributed elsewhere. Otherwise, it’s really challenging for a private company to censor someone who can simply produce content elsewhere. The reason I’m making a big deal about the semantics is that censorship and free speech are charged words that get people riled up, and for good reason. But they lose their meaning if we start applying them to temporary, minor restrictions rather than actual suppression. It’s like saying you’re being censored if you can’t say whatever you want in the lobby of Spotify HQ. No, that’s private property and you don’t have that right. Go to the public square and say whatever you want there — no one is censoring you. The idea that you can do or say whatever you want on private property is bizarre to me. That’s never been part of any country’s laws or cultural history. When Rogan can’t say something on his own platform or in a public setting or 1 company controls the large majority of content distribution, then I’m with you 100% that that’s censorship. Until then it’s the market at work and non-monopolistic companies conducting business within the bounds of their contract. If you don’t like it, take your content and your business somewhere else, it’s a free country.
- buttercraft 5y ago
  > My view is that, in general, companies should not censor. Free speech is good. This does not line up. A private company "censoring" is actually exercising its right to free speech. The alternati e is compelled speech. You can't have it both ways.
  - jtc331 5y ago
    That’s true to a degree except that most of the companies involved have made their position by selling it as a platform that anyone can use and that the content on the platform is explicitly not the speech of the platform provider.
    - awb 5y ago
      > selling it as a platform that anyone can use Every major online platform has a ToS and in this case, Spotify has a contract with Rogan. So, it's not like a public square that anyone can use, it's more like private property with terms and conditions. Maybe people think these platforms are open to anyone because they don't read the user agreements, they just click "agree". > the content on the platform is explicitly not the speech of the platform provider. Sure, kind of like a book store didn't write the books, but they get to choose which ones they want to give you access to.

by awb 5y ago

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.
awb 5y ago
> I don't agree that censorship means "totally restrict". Can you point me to a definition of censorship that supports your view? Your definition is so broad that anyone who declines to share anything ever is “censoring”. At that point we need a new word for the action of totally suppressing content everywhere and declining to share content to distinguish between two very different events with two very different outcomes throughout history. Or I guess a qualifier like “total censorship” vs. “limited distribution censorship”. At this point why not just use the words “censorship” and “restricted” as originally intended?
- slibhb 5y ago
  The way you're using the words "suppress" and "restricted" is bizarre semantic bullshit designed to support your argument. The definition you linked to supports my argument. > Your definition is so broad that anyone who declines to share anything ever is “censoring”. No it's not. Individuals are not censoring when they decline to share something. A company or government may be, depending on why.
  - awb 5y ago
    > The definition you linked to supports my argument. I honestly don’t see how and if you decide to not explain then I guess we’re done. Disney can censor their content because they own it and it can’t legally be reproduced or redistributed elsewhere. Otherwise, it’s really challenging for a private company to censor someone who can simply produce content elsewhere. The reason I’m making a big deal about the semantics is that censorship and free speech are charged words that get people riled up, and for good reason. But they lose their meaning if we start applying them to temporary, minor restrictions rather than actual suppression. It’s like saying you’re being censored if you can’t say whatever you want in the lobby of Spotify HQ. No, that’s private property and you don’t have that right. Go to the public square and say whatever you want there — no one is censoring you. The idea that you can do or say whatever you want on private property is bizarre to me. That’s never been part of any country’s laws or cultural history. When Rogan can’t say something on his own platform or in a public setting or 1 company controls the large majority of content distribution, then I’m with you 100% that that’s censorship. Until then it’s the market at work and non-monopolistic companies conducting business within the bounds of their contract. If you don’t like it, take your content and your business somewhere else, it’s a free country.
buttercraft 5y ago
> My view is that, in general, companies should not censor. Free speech is good. This does not line up. A private company "censoring" is actually exercising its right to free speech. The alternati e is compelled speech. You can't have it both ways.
- jtc331 5y ago
  That’s true to a degree except that most of the companies involved have made their position by selling it as a platform that anyone can use and that the content on the platform is explicitly not the speech of the platform provider.
  - awb 5y ago
    > selling it as a platform that anyone can use Every major online platform has a ToS and in this case, Spotify has a contract with Rogan. So, it's not like a public square that anyone can use, it's more like private property with terms and conditions. Maybe people think these platforms are open to anyone because they don't read the user agreements, they just click "agree". > the content on the platform is explicitly not the speech of the platform provider. Sure, kind of like a book store didn't write the books, but they get to choose which ones they want to give you access to.