We may have the freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean that Youtube has to give you a megaphone?
Private entities can't censor anything, anyhow. Independently and freely choosing which sentiments to platform on a private service is not censorship, no matter how far anyone tries to stretch the definition of the term.
Censorship is going around to all the platforms and forcing them to remove content which has already been or is on the way to being displayed to the public.
>Censorship is going around to all the platforms and forcing them to remove content which has already been or is on the way to being displayed to the public.
No, actually, that isn't the definition. You guys just had a back and forth on this. You're artificially trying to limit the definition of "censorship" to fit your sentiment because your sentiment is not based in objective reality.
While I would agree with you that YouTube should not be compelled by law to host any content and can censor whatever they want (and we can, and should, refuse to use YouTube to host our videos and inform ourselves), it is still censorship, plain and simple.
If you send me a DM asking me to repeat your claims in a public-facing comment, and I refuse, that is not censorship. Ditto for any and every private entity which exists.
>Censorship is going around to all the platforms and forcing them to remove content which has already been or is on the way to being displayed to the public.
That is your own personal definition. What happened to meeting people where they are?
"From the consumers’ point of view, net neutrality is a guarantee that all connections are treated equally and ISPs won’t censor the internet."
https://nordvpn.com/blog/net-neutrality-pros-and-cons/
" Some notable incidents otherwise have included Bell Canada's throttling of certain protocols and Telus's censorship of a specific website critical of the company."
" Deep packet inspection helped make real-time discrimination between different kinds of data possible,[49] and is often used for Internet censorship."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality
>While it is true that extortionary tactics can be used to effectively censor particular sentiments, that is not what is being referred to in discussions surrounding net neutrality.
Maybe it wasn't being discussed around you. I certainly remember discussions on HN about comcast blocking torrents or whatnot and 'censoring' the internet. But I guess you have a different definition of censorship, so we never did achieve common ground on that.
1. the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security. 2. (in ancient Rome) the office or position of censor.
Modern capitalism has replaced the public square and a huge number of face-to-face communication opportunities with communication mediated by private corporations, and it uses those (and they take liberties themselves to for their own purposes) to outsource censorship and stiffle public discussion...
The idea of restricting freedom of speech to the state is an antiquated idea, belonging to pre-internet times, when a huge part of social interaction didn't happen through social media...