[KarlKemp]

Google, not being a government, may editorialize, using the same right you avail yourself of when you post your opinion, but not mine.

Google cannot censor. By definition. Neither can Yandex. Both can be censored however, although only the latter is.

The Russian government can & does censor, including, starting tomorrow, 15-year jail-sentences for „misleading statements“ about you-know-what.

[mquander]

Google disagrees with you. It presents this definition of the verb "censor" in a one-box:

https://www.google.com/search?q=censor%20definition

> examine (a book, movie, etc.) officially and suppress unacceptable parts of it.

[threeseed]

Google disagrees with you. It presents this definition of the verb "officially" in a one-box:

https://www.google.com/search?q=officially

> with the authority of the government or other organization

[mquander]

Wouldn't you say that Google is an organization, employing people with the authority to examine and suppress content?

[ivan90210]

I suppose you don't call removal of LGBTP+ elements from the media released in Russia/China/MENA "censorship" either, just private companies exercising their rights, right?

[filoleg]

> I suppose you don't call removal of LGBTP+ elements from the media released in Russia/China/MENA "censorship" either, just private companies exercising their rights, right?

I would call it censorship. But in those examples you listed, I would attribute it to the government and not the company. Because by removing those elements, they are not "exercising their rights to do so", they are "complying with local laws and regulations by doing so".

For a specific example: in Russia, "propaganda of homosexualty" (which includes something as trivial as explicitly acknowledging that one of the main characters is attracted to a person, or people in general, of the same sex) is against the law and is heavily punished.

So in reality, those companies only have two options: sell their product with those elements removed for that specific market or become unable to legally sell their product in that market at all.

Is it censorship? I would argue "yes", but I wouldn't say that the censorship is done by the company. If that action was required in order to be in compliance with local laws and regulations, I would call it for what it actually is - government censorship. After all, they are the ones making those laws and regulations that decide what is allowed and what needs to be removed.

[_jal]

Google can censor. Censorship is necessarily performed by an entity with the power to restrict information conveyance, but it is not necessary for them to be a government.

It is true that it is impossible for Google to violate the 1st Amendment (unless they were nationalized first).

[tomc1985]

And how exactly is Google prohibited from censoring? By definition?

They're a private company. They can do whatever they want within the limits of the law. And the law doesn't say anything about not publishing something. Which can be done for purposes of censorship.

[Barrin92]

>And how exactly is Google prohibited from censoring? By definition?

They're not a publisher. You have zero ability to post anything to Google, so there is nobody to be censored. They're an aggregator, and any aggregator can display whatever information they want.

[CyanBird]

Censor is censor: Please avoid editorializing the discussion