[BubRoss]

An organization choosing not to publish someone is not censorship. People choosing not to listen is not censorship.

A government choosing what information you have access to IS censorship.

There are many organizations, anyone can start one. There is only one government and you can't escape it.

[colordrops]

That wouldn't be a problem if these organizations hadn't captured 95% of the discourse. There is nothing in the definition of censorship that requires it to be done by the government.

The same sort power brokers that would drive censorship in a place like China are the ones who fund political campaigns, found think tanks, control media empires, and choose advertising spend, and use this leverage to drive censorship on social media.

In the end if the rich and powerful have effectively squelched dissent does it matter if it was through government mandate or some more complex mechanism though private means?

[yawaramin]

While true by the dictionary definition, the commonly-understood colloquial definition of 'censorship' is government censorship.

[colordrops]

I don't believe that to be true, as evidenced by this debate itself and the proliferation of this same debate across the internet.

[BubRoss]

'a problem' and 'censorship' are two different things.

[colordrops]

The censorship by private organizations would not be a problem if...