It is. Censorship is not solely a government action. We have concepts everyone should be familiar with like self-censorship that don’t involve the government.
Censorship is far from not limited to government action. I see this misconception a lot, and I believe it comes from Americans misinterpreting their first amendment.
Censorship doesn't necessarily mean censorship by government. If an entity is powerful enough (Google, Facebook, etc.) they can engage in censorship just as well.
No, it's not... Otherwise 'government censorship' would be redundant. I just checked the top 5 google results for "censorship definition" [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] and NONE of them limited it to government only. I mean, the first sentence of the Wikipedia article even mentions corporate censorship specifically: "...as determined by a government or private institution, for example, corporate censorship."
I think it's important to distinguish between government censorship and corporate self-censorship. Almost nothing should be censored by the government. Almost anything can be censored by private parties (however cowardly such censorship may often be).
No, government censorship is when the government tells you what you can and can't publish. "Private" censorship isn't prohibited by the first amendment (in the United States), but it's still censorship.
Still, there's more and more evidence that the U.S. government has been behind the latest private organization censorship push.
Censorship is not just the sole domain of a government. Private entities are perfectly capable of participating in it. You're conflating two distinct ideas.
reply