Hacker News Reader

Comment by ClayFerguson | Hacker News Reader

At least they didn't censor you when you posted the note saying they edited your content. If they wanted to they could have just deleted that too. I think any sort of censorship at all, once the word gets out, will be damaging to HackerNews, and they should stop doing it before it becomes their "reputation". Communities like this can form elsewhere. Hopefully they know they have no monopoly, and should err on the side of NON-censorship at all times.

View on HN

It wasn't censorship. Only governments can censor.

HN is a private organization and has every right to do anything they want with the content.

My only request was for feedback.

> Only governments can censor.

Bit of a side issue, but that's an interesting statement, I've never heard that before. A quick google doesn't seem to back that up, so I wonder what I'm missing, or why you said that?

I think that's in the legal context: the US government is bound to the 1st Amendment, which has usually been interpreted broadly to apply to (almost) everything the government does. So when the US government does the censoring, it's often questionably legal. However, private organizations aren't usually bound by the same rules, so there's no law against a private organization doing the same thing.

I suppose we can call it "censoring" in both cases, but usually only one of the cases is an actual violation of the law.

When Americans use the word 'censorship' they seem to explicitly refer to censorship in the context of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. By the general meaning of the word, of course anyone can censor anyone else but in America it is meant to be "censorship that violates the First Amendment".

I'm not American. It's just the best explanation I can come up with why this view is so common.

Thanks, yeah that satisfies my curiosity and seems like a reasonable explanation.

arjie covered it well. I accidentally put on my Amero-centric hat, where censorship by the government is illegal, whereas by private organizations it is not.

He's correct that only governments can censor.

On a forum like HN freedom of speech does not apply, because you don't have a right to post here. The first amendment only applies to the government, as it relates to your property, public property, or other private property that you've been granted the right to express through (eg the NY Times).

You don't have a right, for example, to walk into your neighbor's house and exclaim your position on communism.

For another private party to stop you from exercising your freedom of speech, eg in your yard / on your property, they'd have to initiate violence, and properly that is already illegal. It's the government's job to protect you from that force, and by doing so would be upholding your right to free speech (if they fail to do so, they're not protecting your rights, and that can be government censorship by proxy).

And in regards to private context, it also is dependent on what you've agreed to, such as in signing a contract. If you join a community, whether Hacker News or a housing development, and have agreed that you may not fly a flag in your front yard or use verbal abuse (on a forum), then that's a choice you've voluntarily signed on to.

"you don't have a right to post here"

But you may not be able to avoid it. If a forum is the popular forum, you either post, or never be heard. You have to post there to get heard. So the "private company" can choose what is heard or not. That is censorship. Not illegal, as many said, but censorship. With all the bad results.

What would be the word for "private organization removes or edits content that they do not like"? Can't we just use the word "censor", or do we have to write half a sentence every time we want to get that idea across? Being verbose just because we don't want a word to have two or more possible meanings doesn't seem very useful.

You're right, it's perfectly acceptable. I just have an aversion to the word because people would often accuse us (reddit) of "illegal censorship", in which we'd have to point out that it is only unlawful for the government to do it -- regardless of the fact that reddit wasn't actually censoring anyone.

Right, there certainly is a difference between the two concepts, particularly legally, but I think they overlap enough that we can use the same word so long as we are careful to remain aware of the distinction. Your aversion is well-founded.

I really miss a downvote now =8-/

I think any sort of censorship at all, once the word gets out, will be damaging to HackerNews, and they should stop doing it before it becomes their "reputation"

HN censors people every day, as is their right. My account right now is under the influence of a slowbanning for what reason I have no idea.

Really no idea? Maybe it's that glowing pink target you have taped on your back that reads "300bps"? :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com