[nwienert]

Three claims are there:

- Facebook is censoring this content

- They decided Linux is malware

- They label groups associated with Linux as "cybersecurity threats"

The first one they seem to give evidence for the second two seem to be assumptions.

[skissane]

> - Facebook is censoring this content

I’m surprised we haven’t yet heard from the “it isn’t censorship if a private company is doing it” crowd in this conversation

[Hasu]

As a member of that crowd, you're misrepresenting the argument. It is absolutely censorship when a private company does it, but they have the right to do so; it is not illegal. But they also cannot force me to use their platform, I have the right not to use it.

I don't have a problem with the censorship here on HN, so I post here. I do have a problem with the censorship on Meta properties (aside from being offended by their product design and general aims as an organization), so I don't have accounts with them or view content on their properties. I also have the right to criticize them for their censorship, but not the right to prevent anyone else from using it if they want.

[skissane]

I’m not misrepresenting the argument because you are not a member of the crowd I was talking about.

There are people here who literally argue “it isn’t censorship because a private company did it”. Here’s a random example of a recent such comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42787234 - other examples: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42664998 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41385109

There are really three separate issues:

(a) can something a private entity decides to do, without any government pressure to do it, count as “censorship”?-this is a definitional question

(b) is such private censorship illegal (in whatever jurisdiction)?-this is a factual question of what the law actually is

(c) should such private censorship be illegal (in whatever circumstances)?-this is a public policy question of what the law ought to be

You are talking about (b), whereas I was talking about (a)

[master-lincoln]

Why do you bring up that you are surprised? Doesn't seem to add to the conversation.

What would a definition of censorship be that includes private entities? Can you link to one?

[themaninthedark]

Why would he bring up what he views as hypocrisy of members of this community when they espouse the view that it is not censorship when a private entity censors one view point(something they disagree with) but stays silent(viewed as tacitly agreeing) when there is outrage over viewpoints being removed that those members agree with.

IMO, it adds more to the conversation than all the comments the dog-piled with "It's not censorship because it's not the government".

>What would a definition of censorship be that includes private entities?

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments and private institutions.

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

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. https://www.aclu.org/documents/what-censorship

Censorship, the changing or the suppression or prohibition of speech or writing that is deemed subversive of the common good. It occurs in all manifestations of authority to some degree, but in modern times it has been of special importance in its relation to government and the rule of law. https://www.britannica.com/topic/censorship

I would ask you if you can link to a definition of censorship that only calls out the government? Aside from XKCD's terrible comic. https://xkcd.com/1357/

[skissane]

> What would a definition of censorship be that includes private entities? Can you link to one?

Merriam-Webster defines censorship [0] sense 1(a) as "the institution, system, or practice of censoring" and sense 1(b) as "the actions or practices of censors". Neither definition includes an explicit requirement that it must be done by the government as opposed to a private entity, although we also have to look at their definitions of "censoring" and "censors". Their example for sense 1(a) does mention the government ("They oppose government censorship") – but I don't think we should read examples as limiting the scope of the definition, plus the very phrase "government censorship" suggests there may also be "non-government censorship".

For "censor" (noun), their sense (1) is "a person who supervises conduct and morals" – it doesn't say such a person can only belong to the government. It then says "such as" (which I read as implying that the following subsenses shouldn't be considered exhaustive), sense (1)(a) "an official who examines materials (such as publications or films) for objectionable matter" – an "official" needn't be government – indeed, their definition of "official" [2] gives two examples, a "government officials" and a "company official", clearly indicating that officials can be either public or private. Their example for censor noun sense (1)(a) mentions "Government censors..." – but again, examples don't limit the scope of the definition, and qualifying them as "government" implies there may be others lacking that qualification.

For "censor" as a verb, Merriam-Webster gives two senses, "to examine in order to suppress (see suppress sense 2) or delete anything considered objectionable" (example: "censor the news"), and "to suppress or delete as objectionable" (example: "censor out indecent passages"). Neither gives any hint of being limited to the government. Let me give my own example of the verb "censor" being used, quite naturally, in a sense in which the government is not directly involved: "The Standards and Practices department of NBC censored one of Jack Paar's jokes on the February 10, 1960, episode of The Tonight Show", from the Wikipedia article "Broadcast Standards and Practices". [3] Now, you might argue that NBC was forced into censorship by the FCC – possibly, but I'm not sure if the FCC would have objected to the specific joke in question, and NBC had (and still does have) their own commercial motivations for censorship separate from whatever legal requirements the FCC imposed on them.

Similarly, Wiktionary's definition of "censorship" starts with "The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression or press..." [4]. The fact it says "state or group" as opposed to just "state" implies that non-governmental actors can engage in censorship per their definition.

Wiktionary's definition of the noun "censor" includes "An official responsible for the removal or suppression of objectionable material (for example, if obscene or likely to incite violence) or sensitive content in books, films, correspondence, and other media" [5] – it never says the official has to be a government official, and their example sense is "The headmaster was an even stricter censor of his boarding pupils’ correspondence than the enemy censors had been of his own when the country was occupied" – which could very easily be about a private school rather than a government-run one.

I should also point out that the Catholic Church has officials called "censors". To quote the 1908 Catholic Encyclopaedia article "Censorship of Books" [6], "Pius X in the Encyclical 'Pascendi Dominici gregis' of 8 September, 1907 (Acta S. Sedis, XL, 645), expressly orders all bishops to appoint as censors qualified theologians, to whom the censorship of books appertains ex officio." And the Catholic Church still employs "censors" to this day, [7] although their role has shrunk greatly – generally they are theologians (most commonly priests, although I believe laypersons are eligible for appointment) to whom a bishop delegates the review of certain publications (primarily religious education curricula) and who then makes a recommendation to the bishop as to whether to approve the publication or demand changes to it. Obviously if the Catholic Church has "censors", the concept includes private bodies, since the Catholic Church is a private body almost everywhere (Vatican City and the Holy See excluded).

[0] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship

[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring

[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/official

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_Standards_and_Practi...

[4] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/censorship

[5] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/censor

[6] https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03519d.htm

[7] see 1983 CIC Canon 830, https://www.vatican.va/archive/cod-iuris-canonici/eng/docume...

[BlueTemplar]

Here's a great recent, very dense video, almost exclusively about non-state censorship :

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B6GWoJTDttU (fr)

[jeltz]

While I agree with you this is off-topic. I am happy to not have to see that argument. And you were the wine to bring it here now.

[onli]

There is a screenshot in the article of the appeal, confirming 1 and 2. Three follows logically.

[loeg]

No, this doesn't show (2). It shows that Distrowatch specifically was considered malware -- not Linux in general.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42847474

[notfed]

To be fair, the screenshots are data points, but more would be needed to support the generalization being made.

[nwienert]

Confirms that one time, one moderator labeled it that, not that "Facebook decided" it.