Talk:Internet censorship

Why does the color of USA in the article map suggest that there's little censorship in USA? What about twitter doing favors for both parties and censoring/shadowbanning users? What about snowden and the massive surveilance that he whistleblow?

I guess one can cherry pick the sources when coloring the map and so have the usa look like an innocent actor and also be ok with wikipedia rules. 79.167.189.17 (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not censoring. The gov't (both when under Trump and Biden) only requested removals, it was still up to Twitter to decide to take that. Censoring requires the gov't to be strictly the ones to remove the content. Masem (t) 01:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

by what definition censoring must be strictly carried by the govt? quoting wikipedia's article on censorship:

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies. 79.167.189.17 (talk) 11:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between "we choose not to have this material in our school library" (eg Maus#Reception and legacy) and "this book is not allowed to be sold or lent anywhere in the state, under pain of imprisonment" (e.g., Samizdat). The former is not censorship, the latter is. The US has a constitutional right to freedom of expression: you have the right to say or print what you like but I have the right not to listen to or read what you say. You appear to have misunderstood the word "suppression" --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone posts something critical about a politician, that politician then asks twitter to remove that post, and twitter happily complies, isn't that censorship? your right to choose what to read, and in fact not read that said post, doesn't change the fact that twitter on behalf of the state censored that post. 79.167.189.17 (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing compeled under legal threat for Twitter to take action, but instead use their moderation platform to consider the request. No censorship.

Whats happening in Florida, on the other hand, with libraries being forced to remove book due to a new law, absolutely borders on censorshio. Masem (t) 14:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To the end user, the result is the same. The end user can't access information because these information were censored. Does it matter if it was the state or the capital that censored the information? maybe it matters to lawyers but to the end user it is the same. 79.167.189.17 (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter has a free speech right as well - the right to decide what is and is not posted on their website, just like your local newspaper isn't required to print every letter someone sends them. You only have unrestricted free speech if you own the printing press / website. MrOllie (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This argument seems to just be going in circles. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Owning the printing press? So, free speech is tied to capital access? If I'm rich enough, I can have free speech, but if not, no free speech for me? 79.167.189.17 (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the US you are free to say what you want.within free speech, but no one is required to provide you the platform for conveying that message. If it were censorship, you would be unable to freely speak in the first place with fear of retribution. Masem (t) 14:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you're not free to say what you want, there are libel laws. The fact they aren't required to provide you the platform doesn't make it less of a censorship when they delete your posts or shadowban you because some politician (not some judge) asked them to do so. 79.167.189.17 (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok this is starting to go off-topic to just discussing free speech rather than "No internet censorship at USA". IF this continues I"m going to close this conversation as it's going nowhere. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, as I understand it, USA has privatized censorship and thus no longer call it that. I think you should update the entry on censorship to reflect that. 79.167.189.17 (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Once reliable sources reflect that of course. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you can always cherry pick reliable sources to fit your pre-existing narrative and color the map in whatever way you wish. 79.167.189.17 (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]