> censorship is the intent to prevent someone from speaking.
You can't mean that seriously. If I successfully form the intention to stop someone speaking, but fail to carry through (perhaps because I don't own a police force), are you really saying that I've succeeded in censoring them?
It seems to be the fashion these days to construct arguments based on redefining words. If "censorship" is a kind of intention, then there doesn't appear to be much wrong with censorship. You've redefined a word that is generally considered to refer to something bad, to mean something that isn't bad. That's sort-of OK, but it means that we have to put a glossary of definitions at the top of anything we say.
> That stretches the meaning of the word beyond anything useful though.
No - it’s literally the definition of the word censorship: “suppression or prohibition of speech”. It really sounds like you’re trying hard to redefine the word to mean what you want to say, but maybe you should just pick a different word?
A term cannot be accurate. I understand you're trying to suggest that "censorship" is an accurate way to describe this particular scenario, but that's your own subjective opinion, which IMO, is incorrect. Censorship necessarily implies an intentional effort to squelch a particular person or idea.
Nobody is censoring anything, in either a precise or a fuzzy sense[1]. Conflating criticism and censorship is (a) a category error, (b) a really pernicious notion, and (c) confuses people and derails discourse.
A core principle of free speech is that the answer to bad speech is more speech. Mislabeling criticism censorship attempts to delegitimize that answer, and thus paradoxically attacking the very notion purportedly being defended.
Please don't do that.
[1] Insert private-citizens-cannot-censor distinction here beside an acknowledgment that the word is used informally with wider applicability.
> 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?
No it isn't. It is literally the definition that is on wikipedia. That is a very good authority on definitions for things.
> At that point "censorship" is diluted to have no meaning beyond curation.
Sure it does. The meaning is quite clear in the article, which is a relevant authority on the issue.
Private companies can censor people. That is the definition, and the relevant authorities on the matter agree that it is.
Most definitions that you find with agree with me that private companies can censor people. This is not controversial, and most definitions agree with me.
That's because it's not called "censorship" any more. Instead, people will label a person whose speech they dislike as a racist, homophobe, Islamophobe, anti-semite, misogynist, etc. Sure, people with such views exist and we should debate how we, as a society, want to respond to such views.
What is the problem is the unwritten expectation that, once identified as such by almost anyone, you are excluded, attacked, and told to "shut up". For a regular person it's often enough to be labeled in this way once for their social or work prospects to either be ruined or hurt. Worse, the label will still stick, even if later this person is exonerated.
> Finally, censorship is always bad, for a variety of well understood reasons that we don't need to repeat here.
I agree that uncensored speech is good, but when I read this I knew it would come up as problematic. I think we've all seen a lot of bad arguments sneak their axioms into the conversation with a line like this (but again, I agree with what's written here). Does uncensored speech fall into the category of "it goes without saying"? Perhaps I should learn more about censorship so I can effectively advocate against it, just like the article says.
> Most of all, it's necessary to apply to yourself.
Sure, that sounds like it could be a great principle. It's not what actually happens, though. The terms are loaded weapons, sticks to beat people over the head with; and discourse online trends weaponised. Cries of "censorship" are used as a battering ram to prise open an online space for invasion. When the only difference between an action that is morally acceptable and one that is not is the internal state of mind of the actor, with the case being tried in the court of public opinion, defense is all but impossible.
You did it yourself: "Censorship is when someone hides something for you, because they don't want you to see it." Someone. /They/. That's not a sentence about personal introspection. That's a statement tying a judgement to someone else's actions. He/she/it censors.
But discouraging the spreading of a message at each spreader, for example by letting the spreader know the message is tagged as misleading by some large number of people before they spread it further is not censorship.
That may limit the rate, intensity, and real-world effect of some kinds of information, without fundamentally limiting the right to free speech.
Does not matter. This is still the definition of censorship, according to the relevant authorities on definitions of words.
Basically every definition that you find will agree with me that private companies can censor people.
> should be able to force
Who said anything about force? I am just saying that private companies can censor people, according to basically every definition of the word. You can have whatever opinions that you want on if censorship is good or bad.
> If you cannot censor away opinions, if suppression of ideas doesn't work then why in exactly these kinds of articles do people bemoan it as dangerous?
They may think censorship doesn't work but can still do damage, such as by lowering the standing and integrity of the left, damaging the liberal commons, or paradoxically making censored ideas more appealing.
> But while blunt censorship more often than not backfires
Does it? It seems to me, it is in fact effective in shaping opinions of populace. Sometimes it backfires. In particular, it did in fact worked for Nazi.
Censorship does not work is expression of hope and political statement. But in fact, it does work. It does not necessary creates better overall culture/environment. But it has actual effect.
> Certain ideas are made more difficult to express
Which ones? Describe a few. Try not to embarrass yourself by either picking something for which someone could actually find a tweet embodying the idea, or by demonstrating that what you're talking about is actually not, in fact, so much an idea.
> by a defacto authority
Twitter is not an authority. It's one of many fora.
> That's censorship, by definition.
Nope. By definition, censorship describes activity by the state. You might productively stretch the definition to any other entity that can use physical force in the same manor a censorous state does to selectively deprive people of liberty or health on the basis of speech opposed by said entity, but that's it.
> Hence my original choice of the word "soft".
ie, indicating that in actual fact, no speech has actually been suppressed at all.
> Honestly it sounds like you're upset that someone noticed the suppression of right leaning opinions
"Noticed," heh. Like, with some kind of evidence? Not anecdotal, analytical? Systemic suppression of right wing opinions?
Can you describe which right wing opinions are being suppressed -- apparently to the point where I haven't even heard these opinions?
> I don't think you even realize how disingenuous you're being if that's the case.
Speaking of disingenuous, like I said above, please send me your address. Or tell me why I shouldn't be able to compel you to carry posters/signs I'd like to see displayed on your property.
> So why say anything if it’s just an opinion if not a call to action seeking to censor certain opinions?
Why not? I could make an argument that cultural change happens through conversations like this, but honestly I think people are just intrinsically motivated to share their opinions whether it makes any difference or not.
> And my comment likened both, so to suggest the intent of the word censoring is somehow different is semantic nitpicking rather than any productive discourse.
The difference between censoring someone and disagreeing with their opinion is NOT a nitpicky detail. It's literally one of the major differences between totalitarianism and democracy.
The position that censorship is the only way to get people to stop saying things you disagree with, is an absurd, extremist position.
> think a lot of good would come if we stopped using the word "censorship", and just responded to what people actually had concerns with. Censorship is distinct from a dude stating his opinions, and encouraging others to agree with him.
You're right when you say that censorship is distinct from people stating their opinions, but you're wrong if you think we should stop using the word.
The word censorship is useful, because most movements seek to squelch the speech targeted against them, not necessarily re-educate the speaker. This is because of the power of group-think; if a radical idea gains momentum it could spell doom for an entire movement of people due to the tendency of people to believe group opinions rather than singular opinions. Censoring is exactly what they are doing, removing an opinion from the world that they value as obscene.
Nearly all posts on HN that i've read that have thrown around the phrase 'rape-culture' have been entirely about "X CEO of Y company said Z. Fire them!" or "Can you believe X said Y? Z groups demand resignation!"
Where, exactly, is the re-education of concerns happening? I've read the phrase 'rape-culture' at least a hundred times on this forum along with about 40 different definitions and nuanced characteristics , leaving me now clueless about what is or isn't funny.
This situation has effectively censored anyone who is too conflicted to talk about the subject for fear of retribution or loss of reputation/livelihood. It seems the only people who can talk about it are those involved with whatever movements are against the use of the phrase all-together.
I can't think of anything more effective than self-censorship due to fear.
You can't mean that seriously. If I successfully form the intention to stop someone speaking, but fail to carry through (perhaps because I don't own a police force), are you really saying that I've succeeded in censoring them?
It seems to be the fashion these days to construct arguments based on redefining words. If "censorship" is a kind of intention, then there doesn't appear to be much wrong with censorship. You've redefined a word that is generally considered to refer to something bad, to mean something that isn't bad. That's sort-of OK, but it means that we have to put a glossary of definitions at the top of anything we say.
reply