Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

That is debatable. Many would argue that censorship "by definition" involves the government (not the case here), and not merely the removal of content by someone, but prohibition for everyone to distribute it (not the case here as far as I can tell).


It literally satisfies the definition of censorship of three dictionaries I checked. Government censorship is the most egregious type we should all fear, but it's not the only type.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_censorship Corporate censorship is a well understood form.

Example - A news station refusing to publish stories that involves their parent or a sibling company is a common one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_censorship Religious censorship is another well understood form.

If you're saying "political censorship" is the only form of censorship that matters - it's debatable in the same way flat earth arguments are debatable.


Follow up clarification: If your argument is "corporate censorship is benign when compared to political censorship" then I concede that is very debatable indeed.


> Many would argue that censorship "by definition" involves the government (not the case here)

This does involve the government though. They literally called on Spotify to censor Rogan.




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: