3 ms·
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 any
by 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.