It's literally censorship. It doesn't stop being censorship just because you want it censored.
Trying to redefine words like that insults your readers. People might consider your position a bit more if it's not obscured by your ego.
Trying to redefine words like that insults your readers. People might consider your position a bit more if it's not obscured by your ego.
Censorship is when the government steps in to define allowable speech.
Nevertheless, they are still engaging in censorship, per Wikipedia:
> Governments and private organizations may engage in censorship. Other groups or institutions may propose and petition for censorship. When an individual such as an author or other creator engages in censorship of his or her own works or speech, it is referred to as self-censorship.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship
You are doing exactly what I just warned against: trying to redefine words to exempt yourself from criticism.
It's insulting. Nobody has said or implied that YouTube is breaking the law here, so why does your reply hinge on that?
More importantly, why would anyone want such a shameless megalomaniac filtering what they can read and watch? That's the crux of censorship: you're not just refusing to personally host some content - you're demanding everyone else does the same in order to ensure that it's not available at all.
The merits of censoring an enemy propaganda outlet during a war can be debated, but pretending that it isn't censorship at all is equal parts absurd and dangerous.
Although, given that it's not a newspaper, but rather a massive telecom service, it should be.
> Censorship is when the government steps in to define allowable speech
Censorship is not a technicality, and if someone is capable of doing a mass filtering of opinions, it's still censorship. And given that the government can pressure private entities into practical censorship (congress hearings on how facebook does a bad job of filtering alternative opinions on controversial topics), the technicality part is so thin that there is no real practical difference, except maybe you don't even have any legal way to challenge it, given that there is no legislation.
Explain to me how you would come to that conclusion if it wasn't for the media? And how would you justify spreading that information if it came from "not really accurate or objective" media? Without being able to cross-check, you're just spreading one-sided gossip, if not rumors like the snake island story.