Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It is, by definition, censorship. It's not _government_ censorship, but it's still censorship.



Yeah, but so what?

Companies need censorship to make money. They shouldn't have to lose money simply to satisfy your or my idea of not censoring.

Now the government? Yeah. That's a whole other issue.


Yeah, but so what?

Companies need to trample on your human rights to make money.

Now the government? Yeah. That's a whole other issue.

False. Freedom of speech outweighs property rights and the right of corporations' "Freedom of association."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBozijndSLc


It becomes a political issue when all companies start engaging with it, especially when they do so under external political pressure ("We really don't want to pass a law - how about you self-regulate?").

Consider the situation in Australia, where all ISPs acted in concert to block websites. It's technically not government censorship, but the effect is the same - so any utilitarian rationale behind restrictions on government censorship should apply here equally.

Or maybe this should just be considered a form of illegal cartel.


I'm going into nitpicking rabbit hole, but the definition of 'censorship' is government censorship. The word comes from Roman republic position of 'censor'.

"The censor was a magistrate in ancient Rome who was responsible for maintaining the census, supervising public morality, and overseeing certain aspects of the government's finances." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_censor

When its not government censorship it's called self-censorship or something entirely different.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: