>> Let's define censorship as the suppression of speech, ideas, communication, and information in general. I feel like your definition and mine are too far apa

>> Let's define censorship as the suppression of speech, ideas, communication, and information in general. I feel like your definition and mine are too far apart to meaningfully determine if HN is censored or not. By your definition all speech is equal and should carry equal weight, regardless of truthfulness. Whereas I regard truthfulness as a key factor in whether suppression equals censorship. Equally there's no requirement for every idea to be spread with equal enthusiasm. Ignoring rubbish isn't censorship, it's simply ignoring rubbish. When it comes to altering cultural norms, lots of ideas are rejected simply because their time has not come. And may never come. But again, disagreeing with you, even dowvoting you is not censorship. Being ignored is not the same as bring censured. As society changes, so ideas that were once radical become main stream. Usually not because of internet forum posts, but because specific actions demonstrate outcomes. If I think wages should be lower then I'm free to take a lower wage, or to pay my staff a lower wage (and see if they agree.) If I believe in outsourcing I can find someone somewhere else to do my job and save my company money. And so on.