[gtlondon]

We seem to be moving from an era when internet censorship was considered bad, to one where "It's OK, we're just censoring this".

I have no sympathy towards gun use - but the principle of large monopolies applying their own morals to censor content seems wrong.

[slivym]

I disagree with this, I think it's fine for large web companies to apply their own morals. The problem I have is that they're having their cake and eating it.

To me there are two models:

- You are a platform, you don't moderate content (although you do respond to law enforcement), you are not responsible for the content on your site.

- You are a media company, you do moderate content, you are responsible for the content on your site.

Reddit & Youtube want a little from (A) a little from (B). They want the revenue from being a neutral platform, and the control of being a media company to moderate content for PR purposes.

The problem they're facing is that by banning stuff they don't like, they are endorsing everything they don't ban. So for example, at Reddit, Pizzagate is now officially endorsed as a reasonable point of view that Reddit believes is a valid opinion and is worthy of investigation. We know that reddit endorses pizzagate, because reddit moderates their content and decided to allow pizzagate conspiracies.

[prepend]

What are their morals? If corporations even have morals, the morality based decisions seem purely based on some unknown to me outrage/butthurt quantum. So this fluctuates quite a bit depending on many factors. Interestingly, since social media can be used to manipulate opinion pretty easily (eg, CA) large companies can bootstrap outrage according to their true values.

This could end up being a maximizing rule for revenue. So a pseudo morality may be as simple as “legal, pr coverage, max revenue).

[otakucode]

Uncertain about Reddit, but Google/Alphabet morals were pretty well laid out in Eric Schmidt's book "A New Digital Age" where he details how because he is rich, it is his duty to determine the morality of society. It's a very old-school viewpoint that's common amongst 'old money' types that see the general public as rabble to be yolked and who must be protected from their own self-destructive natures. It's the mindset that backed kings and queens for thousands of years and got a swift kicking in the late 1700s on the global stage. But it seems to be making a comeback, albeit a pretty small one so far. This is actual Conservative mindset, where the rights of the individual are a distant second to the rights of the 'greater' structure being served, whether that be a nation, religion, or whatever. Liberalism was the view that people are equals, that there are no 'special' people imbued with an inherent superiority that entitles them to ruling over and guiding others against their will, and any 'greater' organization should fall if it requires grinding individuals rights to stand.

[rphlx]

> Liberalism was the view that people are equals, that there are no 'special' people imbued with an inherent superiority that entitles them to ruling over and guiding others against their will, and any 'greater' organization should fall if it requires grinding individuals rights to stand.

That was the definition in the 18th century but modern liberalism (neoliberalism, corporate neoliberalism, or whatever you want to call it) - as personified by Blair and Clinton in the mid-90s and then continued more or less in-tact ever since - has diverged very, very far from that philosophy. That's neither an endorsement nor a complaint, but a simple historical fact.

[slivym]

Well for a start, Reddit is a privately owned company run by Steve Huffman and he's been very open that he will use his own moral judgement. Companies are capable of making moral decisions - I agree that most companies morals boil down to "Make the most money and do whatever we can for that purpose" but that's fine, we can judge them on that basis.

[Rebelgecko]

I still see ads on reddit for alcohol and tobacco products (well, I did until yesterday when I turned uBlock back on for reddit). A subreddit that links to wine for sale is bad, but if those same links are purchased as ads it's allowed. I think that says a lot about the morals behind this change.

[this_user]

The real reason for these new rules are the advertisers. The more objectionable content you have on your platform, the more difficult it becomes to attract them. Take 4chan as an example: For years they were struggling to find anyone who would want to advertise there, and that is not entirely surprising.

Reddit is apparently also preparing an IPO in the foreseeable future. It would appear they are attempting to make the site more palatable for institutional investors by cleaning up.

[otakucode]

That was the excuse YouTube used. It was a lie. A plain fabrication. We know this because Alphabet released their earnings and made crystal clear that no 'adpocalypse' ever occurred at all. There was no dip in advertising revenue. In fact, it has only increased. Their motive is not driven by skittish advertisers.

[jacksmith21006]

What? When no advertisers Google is footing the bill. So Google having Alex Jones on YT means Google is paying the bills.

On guns tons and tons and tons of companies have cut ties with the NRA. Yet Google still has the NRA channel.

Data does not support your post.

Personal!y I wish Google would remove content with no advertisers and we can get rid of the alt right crap.

[Scoundreller]

Or just offer 2 tranches of advertising. A higher rate for those that only want to be next to “vetted” content.

Another cheaper rate for those that don’t care.

[gnu8]

I wonder how we can effectively punish Reddit for this. If we can cut into their advertising revenue and derail their IPO, that might force them to reverse their position.

[malnourish]

Or the company might just die. If you want to "punish" them, use or create a different site.

[pkaye]

You can stop using Reddit. That will drive down their advertising revenue.

[Scoundreller]

If they can have the best of both worlds, then so can I.

I’ve enabled my ad blocker on Reddit.

Maybe I’ll suggest having it added to our corporate web filters.

[slivym]

It's much more than that. What if the next time someone posted a conspiracy theory on Reddit about Hilary Clinton she filed a libel claim against Reddit in the UK.

The UK court will consider that under it's jurisdiction because the publication was available in the UK. The UK libel law essentially puts the burden of proof on the defendant.

So now an American citizen can force an American company to prove that the claims of an anonymous user were true, or pay damages.

You can't IPO if everything on your platform is a potentially bankrupting libel lawsuit waiting to happen.

[nezzle]

> I think it's fine for large web companies to apply their own morals.

This is rather like saying you think it's fine for libraries to only carry books in line with their morals. Or perhaps that your phone only works for approved topics.

At a certain size these sites become primary platforms for communication. I would argue that at that point they should be considered a governmental entity for laws around freedom of speech applied to historical means of communication. Or made into one.

[lern_too_spel]

You have a right to publish your own materials. You do not have a right to make a newspaper publish a classified that is against its policies. Similarly, you can put whatever you want on your website. You cannot force another website carry your content simply because that website has achieved some level of distribution.

[tobylane]

>I would argue that at that point they should be considered a governmental entity for laws around freedom of speech.

That's then infringing on their freedom of speech (or lack of). It's an interesting opinion but as it's so far away from any other I've read can you explain it more?

[nezzle]

I'm thinking 'telephone network' rather than 'newspaper'. Phone companies were built as monopolies and faced strict regulation. Imagine your phone only working for company approved topics :)

Speech was worthy of protection under the universal declaration of human rights, and these platforms are becoming so fundamental to communication that they should be given the same consideration.

These platforms have become so centralized, powerful, and ubiquitous that censorship on a platform has a greater impact than preventing a person from speaking. That kind of power should never be wielded unchecked by a private entity.

[dfxm12]

The problem they're facing is that by banning stuff they don't like, they are endorsing everything they don't ban.

This doesn't follow. Not at all. This new rule is pretty clear that users may not use Reddit to solicit or facilitate any transaction or gift involving certain goods and services. Pizzagate has nothing to do with soliciting or facilitating transactions or gifts.

Even if I take your reading of this at face value, it doesn't follow. Having rules against one thing doesn't prove Reddit endorses everything else. That's quite a leap to make, and doesn't follow any sort of logic or precedent.

[xster]

My internet history may be a bit hazy but isn't Reddit banning r/pizzagate or whatever it was and u/spez shadow editing people's comments the 2 biggest events of Reddit last year and likely why voat has users?

[nezzle]

voat has users?

[xster]

Apparently #1589 in the US https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/voat.co

[xster]

Apparently 1589 in the US https://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/voat.co

[macspoofing]

These tech companies were strated by idealistic young men who were initially all about free speech. They just got ground down from years of mainstream press criticism (who love taking potshots at tech companies), the outrage and 'activist' brigade (who now target their campaigns at platforms and advertisers), advertisers who now freak out over individual tweets and even the new tech elite class (e.g. Kara Swisher of Re/code has been on a personal crusade to get YouTube and Facebook to get adhere to her standards of content).

It's a new world. It's no longer the internet of the 90s and early 2000s.

[GCU-Empiricist]

The sad thing is they seem to be oblivious to the fact that they are potentially the dominant media being attacked by the legacy media because their idealism worked and they are gaining market-share, but they keep walking away from what made them so successful.

[Scoundreller]

The media companies may have killed Napster, but that had no long term effect on piracy.

1 provider falls and 5 more grow from the ashes, less vulnerable than their predecessor.

It plays out the same way every time.

[mike10010100]

It's because they're beholden to advertisers rather than their users.

[CompanionCuuube]

The advertisers are the consumers, the users are the product.

[Haydos585x2]

The web still exists very much as it was. You could set up your own site and host any kind of weapons content you wanted assuming it fits with your local legislation. YouTube has no obligation to host your content. It's annoying that the best/most popular/easiest to use video service won't support you/these weapons channels but I don't think it really impacts on _free speech_. Plus, isn't the free speech crowd usually about letting private companies do what they want?

[ptero]

> The web still exists very much as it was.

As a collection of standards, yes. However, trying to find a host for the content that is perceived to be wrong or questionable by the mainstream is now much more difficult. The submission is a case in point. youtube bans gun-related videos not because it is directly bad for their business (on the contrary -- it seems to have an active following), but because lawmakers and media are putting pressure on it to do so. This, in my book, is wrong.

Free speech means arguing against messages one disagrees with, or ignoring them, but not trying to suppress them.

[mindways]

"Free speech means arguing against messages one disagrees with, or ignoring them, but not trying to suppress them."

Agreed, but "I won't provide a platform for this speech" is not "suppressing". If I put up a bulletin board in my front yard and encourage my neighbors to post things there, in general it's eminently reasonable for me to decide that certain things can't be posted - even if my bulletin board becomes the most popular one in town.

(But if it's made "the official town news source" and local government makes certain posting certain things illegal, that's an entirely different kettle of fish.)

Tangentially, there's a 4th option you don't mention for messages one disagrees with - censuring them. (As in "actively and visibly disapproving" - not "censoring"!) For some types of message, the most appropriate response is a firm, unmistakable "That isn't welcome here" / "That's a terrible thing to say" followed by no discussion whatsoever. (Eg: when arguing lends a platform / legitimacy, but ignoring implies acquiescence.)

[ptero]

Your fourth option is perfectly acceptable to me: exercising free speech right to say that original post is a terrible thing to say. However, we should not enforce the "no discussion whatsoever": if either the original speaker or another person wants to argue that it was not in fact a terrible thing to say, let them.

[dfxm12]

Free speech means arguing against messages one disagrees with, or ignoring them, but not trying to suppress them.

No. Free speech refers to protection from the government censoring or jailing for speech they don't want said. If you're relying on a private company, especially one who retains the rights to take down your video at any time for any reason, to disseminate your speech and you're worried about them doing something with that speech, you're speaking wrong.

I know you mention lawmakers are "pressuring" them to make this change, and if that's true, then yes, this would encroach on our freedom of speech. However, I'm having a hard time finding anything that backs up that claim, and "pressuring" is still very different from a government outright telling YT what may or may not be on the platform.

[programmarchy]

The US Supreme Court has a different opinion.

They have ruled that private areas acting as public forums are still subject to the first amendment. See Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins [1]

> A state can prohibit the private owner of a shopping center from using state trespass law to exclude peaceful expressive activity in the open areas of the shopping center.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruneyard_Shopping_Center_v....

[dfxm12]

As the link you provided states, this decision applies to shopping centers in California, whose state supreme court has narrowed its applicability a few times over the years.

This simply doesn't apply to YouTube.

[dragonwriter]

> They have ruled that private areas acting as public forums are still subject to the first amendment

No, they've ruled the opposite, as your own source explicitly states. Pruneyard permitted California to impose free speech obligations on property owners via the State Constitution that the Supreme Court had previously found were not required under the First Amendment. (In effect, it found that the federal First Amendment rights of the property owner did not extend to blocking the state action.)

[phil21]

This is a tired argument. Pretty much everyone knows the legal definition of free speech, pointing it out isn't doing anyone a service on HN.

Free speech is not simply a law. It's a concept society must both value and uphold, or it is a right only the popular and powerful have. If I can't even speak up outside work about my unpopular political beliefs without the economic death penalty - do we really have free speech? I'd argue not really. I don't care too much that the government can't jail me for it - that's a pretty low bar.

While I do agree Youtube has the right to ban whatever they like on their platform, I don't have to think it's a good thing for society - and I will absolutely continue to call these things an erosion of my free speech in society.

Without citizens that vehemently uphold free speech policies, the entire concept folds as soon as we start carving out ever-longer lists of exceptions of those who do not have it.

[tortasaur]

You are describing the First Amendment, not the concept of free speech.

[macspoofing]

You missed my point. I'm saying companies like YouTube and Reddit wanted to be those kinds of neutral platforms. They just got beaten down and that's kind of sad.

[asift]

> Plus, isn't the free speech crowd usually about letting private companies do what they want?

You can believe that a private company has the right to do something but also be opposed to them exercising that right.

There's a difference between free speech as a legal principle and free speech as a moral principle. I personally support both, so while I acknowledge that YouTube has a legal right to restrict speech, I still disagree with their use of that right in this case.

[lordCarbonFiber]

That seems like a missaligned view. The internet from the 90s and turn of the century is still around; hell the tools for creating federated communities and reaching niche groups are stronger than ever. The likes of Reddit, Youtube at least on the scale to which they pivoted to companies looking to make cash, were never really part of that set.

I'd go so far as to say the early communities of the internet were, as a rule, more moderated (either explicitly or implicitly) that even these new rules.

Whoever hosts the service (and as a corollary those that pay them) determines the moderation. The thing about "free speech" (taken to mean unmoderated speech) is that's not something you can build a healthy community on top of. No one got "torn down" by nebulous "mainstream" forces; it's just bad business. All hail the invisible hand of capitalism.

[moomin]

You want to start a personal crusade to change YouTube and Facebook’s standards, go ahead, that’s your first amendment right. Just don’t go taking sideswipes at others for exercising theirs.

[macspoofing]

I can't critize media personalities for their public viewpoints?

What kind of standard are you actually advocating for?

[moomin]

If you can’t see the problem with criticising someone’s position on the basis that they’re not allowed to criticise other people’s positions there’s no helping you.

[macspoofing]

>on the basis that they’re not allowed to criticise other people’s positions

Where did I argue that?

Kara Swisher has the same right to her opinion as everyone else. I do stand by my statement that she's part of a new wave of tech 'elites' who are brown-beating tech companies into accepting certain kinds of ideologically-based standards of conduct. Nowhere did I even imply she doesn't have a right to do that, but I can certainly criticize her for it. Doubly-so because she's a public opinionator with a significant public platform.

[wu-ikkyu]

Sounds like they want you censored for asking questions.

[simias]

This is only a problem because we allowed the web to become centralized around a few large hubs. It makes sense for Youtube to ban this controversial content. It's not new either, websites banning some types of content based on arbitrary rules is as old as the internet. It's not censorship, it's moderating your platform. The problem is that Youtube is so big and almost monopolistic that removing this content from Youtube effectively means removing it from the internet for a large chunk of the population.

If you don't want large monopolies to act as censors then don't put them in the position to do so. You're uploading your videos for free on their platforms, sometimes even expecting them to pay you for it. I can't really see how you can complain if they decide that they don't want to deal with your content anymore. Find an other platform or make your own, that's how the internet is supposed to work.

[humanrebar]

> It's not censorship, it's moderating your platform.

On the contrary, it's literally censorship. It's moderation through censorship.

> I can't really see how you can complain if they decide that they don't want to deal with your content anymore.

I don't find this line of thinking convincing. It's certainly appropriate to criticize moderation policies of platforms. If YouTube decided to censor videos on how to use condoms, #BlackLivesMatters, "conspiracies" about governments reading everyones' emails, or opinions on the Damore firing, criticism would be entirely warranted.

[soundwave106]

The problem is, being a corporate entity supported by other corporate entities' advertisements, there is not much you can do about it. The First Amendment does not apply here: with a few exceptions, you can't force a corporation (or any private entity) to promote something contrary to its interests.

This in itself is okay. I certainly can find places on the web that would censor / moderate videos on how to use condoms, pro-#BlackLivesMatters posts, etc. Not my cup of tea, but they have a right to moderate how they want. We all can chose the social webs we want with the amount and style of moderation we look for. (Seeing the places on the web that are "moderation free", I don't think that is a great option unless you really enjoy a lot of spam and nastiness.)

The real problem is really that, for the average person, the social web has become monopolized into a few uber-dominant platforms, most of which (due to their size) are going to pursue a middle-of-the-road-American moderation policy that (due to their size) is muddy, opaque, and arbitrary. If one sticks to a social vision of just the monopoly platforms, there is "no choice".

Personally, I don't use the big social networks much. The more specialized, de-centralized social web of 10 years ago (eg: forums) is still around, and they are less subject to big-corporate moderation messes. A quick Google shows that, for instance on firearms trading, several firearms BST forums still are around and active. In forum world, if a lot of people didn't like the moderation of one place, they simply went to another forum. That's something that's not always possible even with the closest big-social equivalent, subreddits. The web in general originally was a lot more decentralized than today. The centralization of social in today's web feels like quite the mistake.

[tutts]

The first amendment does apply - just, it applies the other way around. The primary function of media sites is to broadcast their users' messages, and in doing so they're exercising their own freedom of speech. To force them to broadcast certain content would be to compel certain speech from them, which would violate their freedom of speech.

(do note that I'm not a lawyer, so this might not be 100% accurate)

[simias]

>On the contrary, it's literally censorship. It's moderation through censorship.

I suppose you can say that but I don't think it's a useful definition. Censorship is a strong word, if we overuse it it's going to lose its meaning. Censorship generally has the intent of removing something from society at large because the elites deem it dangerous. Youtube isn't calling for the removal of gun content from the internet, they're just policing their platform. I mean, if what they're doing is censorship then what isn't? HN will ban/flag/delete many off-topic/controversial posts on sight, is that censorship? If your Dungeon and Dragon forum bans you because you posted porn, are they censoring you?

I'm not saying that Youtube couldn't or shouldn't be criticized for their move, I was specifically replying to the parent's claim that there was a change of mentality on the internet at large. Moderation or "censorship" as you like to call it has always existed everywhere, online and off. The real problem here is that Youtube wields a disproportionate amount of power by virtue of being quasi-monopolistic.

If you expect advertising-powered private platforms that host your content pro-bono to suddenly start fighting for your ideals against what they feel is their own economic interest I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. Especially if said platform has no serious competitors and knows a huge amount of its users is effectively "captive" audience.

[humanrebar]

> If your Dungeon and Dragon forum bans you because you posted porn, are they censoring you?

Yes. Censorship is a neutral term.

> If you expect advertising-powered private platforms that host your content pro-bono...

I expect people to let each other say their piece. Content owners and content hosts have a partnership, and the balance of power definitely tips toward Reddit and YouTube at the moment.

We can argue that "someone can go start up a more permissive platform", but if we're not sharp and clear about how current hosts should behave, the next hosts won't have a clear understanding of what they should be doing differently. If we're not sharp and clear about how current hosts should behave, regulators trying to get YouTube and Reddit out of the moderation business will likely defer to whichever lobbyists happen to be in the room.

[simias]

The only way to be sharp and clear about how Youtube and Reddit should behave is either boycotting them or having the regulators strongarm them into changing their practices. You exclude the 2nd option, that leaves us with the boycotting. We'll see how it'll turn out but I doubt the general reddit and youtube audience is mature and principled enough to drop these websites because of their idealistic goals. As long as they don't ban cat videos and videogame streaming I'm sure they'll do fine.

I expect that, as always in these situations, a minority of users will migrate to alternative websites (voat, alternative video streaming websites etc...) many of them will end up coming back to Youtube/Reddit because that's where all the content is and the network effect is strong. Repeat in one year when Reddit decides to issue a new wave of subreddit bans. I genuinely don't know how we can get out of this situation.

[chillwaves]

So can we take your argument to its logical conclusion, that you are against all content moderation on any site?

Or where exactly is the line?

This is not censorship.

[headsoup]

That's the thing though, these are private companies at the end of the day and can censor whatever they like. That'll reflect on their brand and perception, but that's their choice.

It's changing because they're trying to follow 'public sentiment' and keep up the sign-ups, views and clicks to get advertisers their money.

If we want them to not be able to censor/moderate/control their platform their own way, they need to be regulated/classed as a carrier/media org.

It's only been 'open' till now because that's the most profitable model...

People need to realise these companies are not public services compelled to free speech, it's just an expectation the users expect to be met.

[salawat]

Have you ever noticed that no one ever brings up a company being private until they do something that outrages the public?

[humanrebar]

> ...that's their choice...

Sure. They can also choose to lie, say sexist things, and promote irresponsible drinking. And I'll criticize them if they do that, too.

I said:

1. It is by definition censorship.

2. People should strongly criticize things that are both legal and wrong.

I do think content hosts need some legal status if we want an open internet (and digital free speech) to survive. But because I'm for healthy conversation, I'm pushing back on replying to valid point with arguments for ending the conversation.

[moomin]

Indeed. Try to get onto Fox News every day and push a pro-choice message and see how long it is before your name appears in a database somewhere with a note saying “do not let on air”. ALL media firms have a slant, bias, &c. YouTube and Reddit, by virtue of their size, _have_ to go for “acceptable to a very wide audience”.

This isn’t censorship, it’s commercial positioning. You don’t have to like it, and indeed you can pressure the firm to take a different line but centralisation is the real enemy here.

But Other Websites Are Available.

[mrlala]

>This is only a problem because we allowed the web to become centralized around a few large hubs

But that's also in the best interested of everyone.

Instead of youtube, we should visit 10 different video sites? Instead of reddit, we should visit 10 different global info sources that now have 10x less content, and spend even more time finding what's relevant? Instead of twitch, we should visit 10 different sites to watch streams?

It's the natural order of things.. there's no way to have a LOT of different sites that also contain basically everything you want.

[simias]

What if each subreddit was an independent forum? What if each youtube channel was a blog hosted on potentially a whole bunch of different hosts? If reddit is so much better than the alternatives what are you doing on HN instead of /r/programming or similar?

The only thing you'd lose is the unified user profile but we have the tools to have distributed identities (oauth and friends). Before the era of social networks having mililon of forums for niche topics was common. Now you just create a subreddit instead.

Want to talk about knitting? Search for "knitting discussion online". Here are a few results: https://www.houzz.com/discussions/knitting-and-crocheting https://crochettalk.com/ http://www.knittingparadise.com/active-topic-list

Each site does not contain "everything I want" but each fills a particular niche. The fact that you actually have to search for them to find them can actually be seen as a bonus, you don't have the sort of "cross-contamination" you can observe on reddit when a community is suddenly popular enough to propelled into the frontpage and you have an influx of people who overrun your community and destroy its "culture".

Should reddit disappear tomorrow I'm sure we'll do just fine. Youtube is more complex because video hosting is much more demanding in terms of resources.

[zrobotics]

On the contrary, centralization can actually reduce the amount of content, at least for certain types. For instance, nearly any automobile will have a dedicated forum, and often these forums will provide some of the most helpful information, simply because they concentrate people around a specific subject. Whereas asking a question in one of the general automotive subreddits will typically yield poorer quality answers or will simply be lost in the noise. Thankfully reddit somewhat solved this problem w/ subreddits, since it's pretty common knowledge that the default subs are complete garbage, but youtube hasn't really done much about this. Sure, if someone made a video for your exact probem it is nice, but for finding specific information youtube is pretty poor.

[Scoundreller]

The latter is just getting worse.

YouTube is doing its best to demonetize content that doesn’t result in subscribing to an uploader. Ie: people posting numerous videos that are unrelated because they are so specific.

[chillwaves]

If content is centralized in this manner you should expect it to moderated and influenced from a central source.

[wu-ikkyu]

>It's not censorship, it's moderating your platform.

This is doublespeak.

>censorship: the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security.

"Doublespeak is a language that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words. Doublespeak may take the form of euphemisms, in which case it is primarily meant to make the truth sound more palatable."

[simias]

You say that I doublespeak and I say that you cry "wolf". If you're willing to go full 1984 when Youtube updates its ToS where do you go from there?

Note that the definition for censorship you quote doesn't necessarily apply here, youtube is not prohibiting "any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security", they're prohibiting it on their platform. That's a huge difference. It's "you can't say that here" versus "you can't say that period". If I invite you to my home and you start spewing nazi propaganda I'm going to kindly ask you to leave, is that censorship?

You can't force Youtube to host your content if they don't want to and they can't prevent you from posting your content on other websites if you want to. There's no censorship or free speech issue here, only the problem of a monopolistic centralized platform without serious competition. That's why net neutrality is important and that's why Making the Internet Decentralized Again is critical if you value freedom of speech and opinion.

[wu-ikkyu]

I agree with you that the root problem bere is monopolistic centralized platforms without serious competition, but you misread the definition of censorship and went on to create your own definition -- this is how doublespeak happens.

It's the suppression or prohibition. Nowhere is the definition constrained by location. There has never been a case of censorship that was enforced on every corner of the globe -- only where one's scope of influence has the power to do so.

[wan23]

The word censor comes from a Latin word for a government official who, well, censored things. In English the word has the implication of being action taken by someone who actually has the power to make moral decisions on behalf of society, such as a government. Maybe you think the word has a different meaning, or maybe you think Youtube has this power, but you should try to disagree without accusing people of being part of a conspiracy to change the meanings of words.

[wu-ikkyu]

>The word censor comes from a Latin word for a government official who, well, censored things.

Do you have a source for this? The latin word censere does not seem to be defined only as government officials silencing opinions they don't like:

>Definitions:assess, count/reckon, decree, vote, determine, recommend think/suppose,judge

http://latin-dictionary.net/definition/8896/censeo-censere-c...

>Maybe you think the word has a different meaning

It was simias who thinks the word has a different meaning, which is why I cited the dictionary. Do you think the dictionary is wrong?

[comex]

"The censor was a magistrate in ancient Rome who was responsible for maintaining the census, supervising public morality, and overseeing certain aspects of the government's finances."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_censor

The name of the Roman office was based on "censere" but had a more specific meaning, and it's that which evolved into the English word "censor", due to the "supervising public morality" part of the censors' job. But the meaning shifted in the process. The Roman censors didn't "censor" anything in the modern sense; rather, they judged people for violations of public morality.

[dragonwriter]

The modern English sense of “censor”, IIRC, isn't directly derived from the as actions of the Roman official, but more from those of the Catholic ecclesiastical official of the same name (sometimes more fully “censor librorum”) who reviews books intended for publication and provides (or withholds) the nihil obstat certifying it free of anything harmful to good faith and morals, which is generally a prerequisite to the episcopal imprimatur allowing it to be published, a function which is very much in line with the modern English understanding of censorship.

[talmand]

I've seen many people lately try to claim that censor is solely a government-related word and censorship is only something that government officials are capable of. Every definition of the word I've seen does not say this.

Makes one wonder where this new definition is coming from?

[wu-ikkyu]

>Makes one wonder where this new definition is coming from?

I suppose we shouldn't be surprised to see the euphemization of technology in a forum full of and run by technologists.

[ataturk]

"I have no sympathy towards gun use."

But you see you should because if the government in conjunction with private industry can ban the thing you don't like today, it can also ban the things you do like tomorrow.

You'll probably finally understand when the books start burning because that's right around the corner now.