You can read everything that gets posted here, including all [flagged] and [dead] posts. Just turn on "showdead" in your profile.
The only exceptions are outright-deleted comments, and we never do that except when the author asks us to. (Exception to the exception: once or twice a decade, we've had to delete something for legal reasons.)
A community is defined by a common set of values and cultural norms, which are a means of censoring those of outgroups in order to maintain a cohesive identity. People censor themselves constantly in order to stay within the boundaries of the law and the norms of public decency.
An online community which has a specific purpose by definition censors content which falls outside that purpose. Hell, the fact that we can't post illegal content is, itself, a form of censorship.
Not everything is, or should be, /b/. Although that site censors as well.
choosing what not to say isn't censorship. Censorship is when the someone with power forces you to refrain from saying something - not just in a particular forum, but in any effective way. This place tells you "if you want to spread certain ideas on the internet from the comfort of your chair, consider twitter or wordpress". Censorship is when the government tells you "if you want to to spread certain ideas on the internet from the comfort of your chair, please consider the gulag or child porn charges". The difference is stark.
Diluting words of meaning doesn't help maintain free speech. It helps destroy it. If we don't know what free speech is, we can't defend it.
(The fact that you can't post illegal content is a form of censorship. But that's not hackernews censoring you, it's the government. The fact that some content is illegal is literally the definition of censorship.)
>Censorship is when the someone with power forces you to refrain from saying something - not just in a particular forum, but in any effective way.
Choosing what not to say based on a fear of the consequences of that speech means that society, or whatever group you're communicating with, has exercised some form of influence or social authority over your speech, which is censorship. The oft-expressed axiom that "The right to swing my arms in any direction ends where your nose begins" is censorship. Who are you, or anyone, to say where my rights begin and end?
>This place tells you "if you want to spread certain ideas on the internet from the comfort of your chair, consider twitter or wordpress". Censorship is when the government tells you "if you want to to spread certain ideas on the internet from the comfort of your chair, please consider the gulag or child porn charges".
And the consensus on Hacker News seems to be that those are perfectly equivalent, that a platform rejecting certain kinds of speech or users being told what sort of speech is acceptable and what isn't inevitably leads to Orwellian fascism. Terms of service and codes of conduct are routinely considered censorship. Amazon banning the sale of Mein Kampf is censorship. Twitter banning anyone for any reason is censorship. Youtube not showing extremist videos in recommendations is censorship. Why is there suddenly a grey area where there never was before?
>Diluting words of meaning doesn't help maintain free speech. It helps destroy it. If we don't know what free speech is, we can't defend it.
Attempting to "thought police" the meaning of words in such a prescriptivist manner is censorship. Who are you to say what words mean? When I use a word, it means precisely what I intend it to mean, no more, no less.
Government censorship is one form of censorship... and the only form of censorship relevant to the first amendment, but "censorship" itself is a much broader and more complex phenomenon.
The only exceptions are outright-deleted comments, and we never do that except when the author asks us to. (Exception to the exception: once or twice a decade, we've had to delete something for legal reasons.)