4 ms·

It is censorship. It's just entirely reasonable censorship as Twitch is a private company and can choose not to host whatever it pleases.

• matai_kolila 4y ago
  It's only censorship in the sense that all rules are "censorship" which IMO removes the value of having a distinct word. A meaningful definition would highlight the desire to suppress a point of view, and you're going to have a hard time justifying "gambling as a point of view", because it's not really a position on an issue.
  • causi 4y ago
    It's only censorship in the sense that all rules are "censorship" which IMO removes the value of having a distinct word. It's censorship in the sense that things are censored, i.e., prevented from being shown or communicated, which is the definition of the word "censorship". Putting a black bar over someone's genitals or bleeping profanity is also censorship. It's just not government censorship, and therefore has no relation to freedom of speech.
    • matai_kolila 4y ago
      ...I'm trying to explain how that definition is kind of useless, as literally every rule is censorship if we use it. The text box here being limited to 5000 chars (or w/e size it actually is) would be censorship under that definition. The fact that I can't also upload audio to HN would be censorship. Does acoustic physics censor me because I can't yell loudly enough for everyone to hear my views on how to cook pasta correctly (salt, the secret is salt)? I just don't find those things to be in the same category as a government arresting protestors, for example, and I don't find Twitch banning otherwise illegal gambling content to be in that same category, either.
      • causi 4y ago
        Fair enough, I amend my statement. It's censorship in the sense that things are censored, i.e., *deliberately* prevented from being shown or communicated based on their informational content. I just don't find those things to be in the same category as a government arresting protestors, for example, Correct; that is government censorship. There is not, however, a qualitative difference between Twitch deciding to ban one behavior from being depicted over another, whether it be gambling, nudity, racism, or people doing that trick with their spit where they let it stretch down several inches and suck it back into their mouths. I'm not seeing a real "point of view" being expressed here, which IMO is also an important part of censorship. Well your opinion disagrees with the dictionary. I don't know what to tell you.
        • matai_kolila 4y ago
          But that's still part of the problem; I'm not seeing a real "point of view" being expressed here, which IMO is also an important part of censorship. Because I'm having a hard time believing "watch me gamble on sites that I'm not legally allowed to gamble on" really qualifies as "a point of view" or "expression" in a meaningful sense (though yes, I bet if we pulled out our Webster's Dictionaries we could squeeze the definition into this conversation somehow).
    • YurgenJurgensen 4y ago
      But it's not. You can still show or communicate the same things as before, as long as the underlying activity isn't actual gambling. Financial transactions aren't speech.
• donatj 4y ago
  In my eyes, the only thing justifiable to censor in all of life is "think of the children" arguments. They are always baseless calls to emotion. A kid watches gambling, what's the harm? They're gambling in school, it's a tail as old as time. Magic cards, pokémon cards, pogs, marbles. They all have aspects of gambling.