undefined | Better HN

0 pointsstale20025y ago0 comments

> That's being overly reductive

No it isn't. It is literally the definition that is on wikipedia. That is a very good authority on definitions for things.

> At that point "censorship" is diluted to have no meaning beyond curation.

Sure it does. The meaning is quite clear in the article, which is a relevant authority on the issue.

Private companies can censor people. That is the definition, and the relevant authorities on the matter agree that it is.

Most definitions that you find with agree with me that private companies can censor people. This is not controversial, and most definitions agree with me.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

dleslie5y ago· 2 in thread

Private companies engage in censorship only when they have a controlling interest on a form of communication, and that is the sole purview of monopolies.

stale2002OP5y ago

> and that is the sole purview of monopolies.

No actually. According to the wikipedia definition on censorship, there is no requirement to be a monopoly, in order for a private business to engage in censorship.

Instead, according to the actual definition of censorship, censorship is any sort of "suppression of speech, public communication, or other information", and private, non-monopolies can absolutely engage in censorship.

You are simply incorrect about what the definition of censorship is. The actual definitions, that are all over the place, do not require a monopoly.

dleslie5y ago

A company cannot fully suppress communications if it does not control the communications medium. There is no company which has a total monopoly on any form of communications in the USA. Material is not effectively made unavailable without total suppression.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse