Also censorship has a specific denotation, i.e. that is is performed by an agent of the state, and specific connotations, i.e. that the censored is unable to express themselves in other ways (among other connotations). A private citizen deleting your comment on a webpage they own and administrate matches neither the denotation nor connotations of "censorship", except in the broadest theoretical reading. And that reading that would appear to prohibit any maintenance of comment sections whatsoever.
> Also censorship has a specific denotation, i.e. that is is performed by an agent of the state
This is not correct; TV networks have censors that operate internally. The government doesn't operate television censors; it is limited to punishing the networks after the fact.
> A private citizen deleting your comment on a webpage they own and administrate matches neither the denotation nor connotations of "censorship", except in the broadest theoretical reading. And that reading that would appear to prohibit any maintenance of comment sections whatsoever.
This is a confused argument; you seem to be proceeding from the premise that censorship is bad, and therefore a phenomenon which is not bad can't be censorship. And then that if it was censorship it somehow wouldn't be allowed. (Observe that the definition of "censorship" cannot in itself prohibit or mandate anything.)
It's much more productive to agree on a definition of a term, and then argue over whether any particular example is good, bad, or a mixture of both, than to agree that a term must be good, and then argue over whether certain things are metaphysically able to fit under that term.
Thanks, I see this kind of (il)logic on HN a lot and it's infuriating. "I think X is bad, this is not bad, therefore not X" or "I think Y is good, since this is not good, this is not Y".
To be totally fair, the article endorses this premise, insofar as the only difference between "moderation" (in the sense of the piece) and "censorship" is that one is good and the other is bad.
1. When a television employee is censoring according to the rules of the state, they are operating as an agent of the state.
2. No, I'm not. I'm preceding from a definition of censorship as "the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts." Getting into "the dictionary say..." arguments is mostly boring, but most of the definitions do include some element of official imprimatur. Someone removing comments from their personal site fails to meet that official element.
Media censors take the rules of the state into account, but they are primarily concerned with pressure groups, not the state. They are most definitely not state agents; that would violate the constitution.
The publisher of a website removing comments from it meets the same soft officialness standard as a newspaper declining to run articles on a particular topic, or a television network refusing to air episodes in which someone disagrees with the group but doesn't end up suffering for it (not an invented example, by the way -- that was a real element of a code governing children's cartoons).
The majority of censors are working to prevent state censure; they are primarily concerned with the state. The primary work they do is removing profanities and indecent images at the behest of the state.
"The primary work they do is removing profanities and indecent images at the behest of the state."
I'm sure that's the primary function of the Chinese government's Central Propaganda Department.
Censorship is when someone or some organisation who has power over you, control your ability to access information.
From the government regulating the content internet users can access deleting content contrary to the government's goals, to administrators of personal websites deleting comments by people espousing views, considered disagreeable by the owner of said website.
Except the government's power to censor you goes way farther than somebody on a private site deleting your comment. You're saying popguns and artillery exist in a continuous spectrum, and I'm saying they're completely different categories and should thus be treated differently.
The diameter of star R136a1 goes so much farther than a typical Red Dwarf. They might be different categories of stars, but they're both stars nonetheless.[1]
I'd say a personal website eliminating disagreeable views from comments is actual censorship, even if it's ability to silence views is a few magnitude orders smaller than state censorship.
If state censorship is an artillery, personal censorship is at least a zip gun, and it can injure someone.[2]
Who can it injure? The state can actually legally prevent you from saying something ("That is slander/libel") at the threat of punishment. I can just prevent you from saying that on my website. I can delete your comment on trowaweeritesgud.com, but I can't stop you from saying whatever ("Kumquats are a better fruit than mangos!") in the comments here, or on NPR, or from rolling up your own site and saying it there. These aren't just (massive) differences in scale, they're also massive differences in effectiveness of the injunction. That's what moves it into its own category.
You can't stop comments in NPR, and China can't stop people accessing information in a foreign country, bringing it back to China and providing it in person in a secret room either. They are massively different in scale, but that is not a reason to put them in different categories (same as with stars, there are massive differences between them in scale, but stars nonetheless)
Mostly because, in an era where you can stand up a website on a worldwide communication network for less than $50, I kinda think that the definitions of censorship have narrowed.
>>Also censorship has a specific denotation, i.e. that is is performed by an agent of the state
Uh, no. Censorship means the suppression of speech or information. Said suppression does not require involvement from an agent of the state to qualify as censorship.
Suppressing speech requires the power to make you stop. Deleting a comment on my site isn't suppressing your speech, because you can still speak where you want to except for on my site.
It suppresses speech on your site. That's what matters.
Same with government-enforced censorship: North Korea can censor speech, but only within its borders. Just because North Koreans living in the US can speak out against Kim Jong-un doesn't mean that what North Korea is doing doesn't count as censorship.
