[12xo]

Censorship is when the government, not private enterprises, stifle speech. When it a private entity, it’s called free market.

This is a difficult concept for whiners to accept.

[rayiner]

That’s literally not the definition of censorship: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship

Otherwise the phrase “government censorship” would be redundant. And that’s why the Hollywood Production Codes were a kind of censorship: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code

And the idea that criticizing censorship when private organizations do it is “whining” is quite odd. Not everything bad is illegal. Lots of people criticized the Hollywood Production Codes as bad censorship, even though it was voluntary. Except back then it was liberals complaining that the Hollywood companies that controlled distribution were using their power to entrench conservative ideas and suppress liberal ones: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/05/17/cens-m17.html

[12xo]

No one ever stopped people from making the films, they only disallowed the distribution and showings via their operations. The Gov, banning a film (porn)was censorship by the Gov and thus was struck down by the Warren court. But you know that right?

[12xo]

You do realize that the literal meaning and the legal meaning are two separate things, right?

Censorship in a privately owned entity is 100% legal. As is bias...

[_a40s]

rayiner answered you decisively and now you're just repeating part of his point.

[dx87]

I thought you said private entities can't censor? Now you're saying they can, but it's legal. So which is it?

[12xo]

They obviously can choose what content they choose to host and display. That is their right as long as it is not discriminatory or in violation of US law. While that is the literal definition of censorship, the issue is not about a free market is it? Nope. Is about the Right whining that their hate is not allowed to be amplified, hence they call it censorship. They, not me, are the ones stating that this is a free speech issue. I state it is not. Explicitly not.

Its a really simple concept. I am surprised you dont understand.

[rightbyte]

"Is about the Right whining that their hate is not allowed to be amplified, hence they call it censorship."

I kinda anticipated Twitter and FBs actions vs. "hate speak" would come down to this. The extremists were never the target they were just the excuse.

[commandlinefan]

Actually, the title refers to it as "bias" rather than "censorship". "free market" is a larger concept than "bias", although you can be biased while still operating within the context of a free market. Still, censorship doesn't have anything to do with the government, although the U.S. explicitly forbids government censorship.

[12xo]

You mean bias like Rush Limbaugh or FoxNews bias? Where other ideas are not only never presented, they are openly mocked?

And that happens mind you, on the PUBLICLY OWNED airwaves and spectrum....

[inglor_cz]

"airwaves and spectrum.... "

If we really start considering media, a lot of taxpayer money worldwide went to broadband Internet infrastructure, so Twitter and friends do not play on a completely private field either.