Hacker News Reader

Comment by wtallis | Hacker News Reader

There's a meaningful and important distinction between restrictions on speech that are enacted and enforced by private companies, and restrictions that are enacted by the government with enforcement outsourced to companies (that may be reluctant to comply).

Using the word "censorship" for the latter but a milder word like "moderation" for the former seems like a perfectly reasonable way to convey this distinction in this context, even if a dictionary might provide a broader definition of "censor".

View on HN

I don't think the distinction is as clear as you imply. Facebook is a multinational corporation that is arguably more powerful than many governments, and it can and has swayed elections.

At what point are Facebook's "moderation" decisions "censorship"? You're effectively saying that it's only when moderation is driven by some kind of government policy, which completely erases the factors that actually matter in evaluating the danger of any given suppression decision, ie. understanding of harm, considerations of power and oppression, etc.

Moderation a conversation implies somebody is getting threatened with their comment being deleted or account suspended. That is censorship. Moderation is just the brand friendly term for it.

It's moderation when it's content I don't like. It's censorship when it's content I do like. Period. That's how it's treated in the public discourse. Accept this, and let's build upon it.

While there are people who misuse the s to score political points, that doesn't erase the real differences in sense and meaning behind them.

Strictly speaking, moderation is a subset of censorship. The key aspect of moderation is that it is generally done by community members (usually volunteers) and done to enforce standards agreed with by the community. Other forms of censorship generally come from outside a community to enforce some rules the community does not support.

Thus perspective and community identity are integral to the distinction but there is still a basis by which you can objectively view the powwr dynamics and distinguish moderation from other forms of censorship (such as corporate censorship or government censorship.)

I do think the term "moderation" is a misnomer when applied to Facebook and Google as their moderators are generally not part of the communities they censor.

When corporate and government power are tied at the hip the distinction is meaningless. Its been meaningless for a long time. Look up Banana Republic as a term.

Think of it this way. If AliBaba does something you know China the government is connected. Same goes true for Zoom.

America is no better. (as the Banana Republic example shows) The head of Apple can call the Speaker of the House directly on the phone whenever he wants and that person will answer. I can guarantee you that the same is true of Google. I am also sure if Jack Dorsey wanted to talk to someone with decision making power in the Whitehouse it could happen within the day. (probably slower than Google or Apple though)

Corporate powers in the US have a relatively quite strong ability to push back on government requests compared to most other jurisdictions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com