- 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.
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
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.
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)
