> 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?
> 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?
> Now whether or not this is censorship is subjective.
No, its absolutely censorship. Whether or not this is the kind of censorship that is undesirable is subjective, as is any other evaluation of desirability.
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.
It worked practically in practice in history. It works also practically in countries like Saudi Arabia. Once in a while censorship does not manage to stop all opposition, which is why once in a while revolutions and such succeed.
But practically speaking, censorship works. That does not makes it right thing to do or something, which would be different claim.
Just because people manage to say censored things here and there just means it cant stop completely all such claims and materials. But it does minimize who will run into them, how many of them will be available and so on.
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.
> I fail to see how this is censorship... They're not censoring content that you are able to access legitimately
Legitimately doesn't come into it.
censorship
noun
"the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that
are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."
If it did, censorship wouldn't be relevant. The content you don't like isn't a naturally or accidentally occurring substance. Someone wanted it to exist.
Bit of a side issue, but that's an interesting statement, I've never heard that before. A quick google doesn't seem to back that up, so I wonder what I'm missing, or why you said that?
>We need to realize our problem is not with censoring people, it's with who does the censoring.
No, the problem is with censoring people.
You make it seem like censorship is a given. I disagree and feel no need to have a third party prune unwanted ideas for me. This will seem like a strange idea for some but I don't need a priest in between myself and God. I don't need a doctor in between myself and good health. Why would I need a censor in between myself and information?
No need for governments, no need for corporations, just me and my silly brain will decide what to digest. What a concept!
-
We need to realize our problem is not with censoring people, it's not with who does the censoring, it's people that try and normalize censorship.
Nope, you are misunderstanding something here. Removing what was considered "given" is what becomes perceived as censorship.
reply