Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

> Whatever they call it, this is censorship.

By definition it is not. Only governments can censor. This is just a private entity making a decision.

You have the right to say what you want, but I don't have to let you into my living room to say it.




Not true at all. Censorship is any type of redaction or restriction, no matter who performs it.

You are confusing censorship with a breach of the first amendment.


"Censorship" comes from the roman word, censor, which was an office of the Roman government in charge of regulating morality.

IOW, censorship has always specifically meant government restrictions speech. It is only recently that censorship has been broadened to include no-governmental actors, and that broadening is not universally accepted.


>It is only recently

If by 1946 you mean "only recently", then sure (ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsh_v._Alabama).

The concept that no company be allowed to enclose the commons has existed ever since the concept of the commons existed; and the Supreme Court has ruled both this and other times that if a private citizen or company encloses the commons they're bound by the same First Amendment that the government is, for the same reasons.


Read the actual case and not the Wikipedia summary.

The ruling only applies to restrictions on public rights of way (in this case, meaning the public easements over otherwise private property).

Supreme Court has ruled both this and other times that if a private citizen or company encloses the commons they're bound by the same First Amendment that the government is, for the same reasons.

No, they haven't. SCOTUS ruled that in limited circumstances, private property can be treated as a public commons if the property owner holds it out for general public use. Following the mall cases, many malls began restricting the acceptable uses on their properties, which is why you don't get harassed by political activists every time you go to the mall. (In a nutshell, open mall spaces are now designated as transit spaces rather than as general use spaces, and thus the entire lineage of SCOTUS cases no longer apply to privately held malls.)


How is such a blatantly false and quite frankly ridiculous comment not heavily downvoted after 2 hours on HN.


> By definition it is not. Only governments can censor

What if we live in a WALL-E type world where corporations are so large and powerful they effectively govern society?


But they don't.


Powerful lobbies shape our laws according to the interests of corporations. "Public Squares" have largely moved to privately-owned internet platforms. And there's no way to have a "voice" on the internet protected by the first amendment because no matter what you have to go through a private corporation that can decide to cut you off at some layer in the stack, even if you self host.


Heard of the patriot act?


Specially if:

1 - The community was repeatedly infringing the TOS.

2 - Reddit has liability to what's being posted on it




Consider applying for YC's Fall 2025 batch! Applications are open till Aug 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: