What on earth are you going on about? Saint-loup suggests arxiv papers should not be talked about on [HN] and you start ranting about censorship?
You are dealing with censorship when an entity uses his authority and power over you to prevent you from saying or hearing certain things. There are usually ideological reasons to prevent freedom of speech and information. We are not dealing with any of that here. At most, we are dealing with a democratically, self-imposed, self-maintained censorship, whose origins are not ideological in nature.
I think perhaps my dictionary is different to yours.
What I'm talking about is this: The web is a wonderful place, originally built to share academic documents, but which has blossomed into so much more. Government documents and many other things are now shared on the web, and discussion and openness is rampant.
Now I hear the suggestion that academic documents should be limited in some way - that they should only be discussed on "academic" websites, whatever that might mean.
This statement to me is analogous to "Government white papers should only be discussed on Government web sites" and reminded me of the recent Australian censorship to prevent "unnecessary premature debate".
I don't like Saint-loup's suggestion at all. If it's a social suggestion that we shouldn't talk about such things, then leave the conversation - don't try to shut it down. If it's a serious suggestion about controlling the conversation, then it is a censorship proposal.
No-one is blacking out words here, but what is the problem with discussing these papers? I asked for a reason, and Maro's very nice response seemed to indicate that it was justified as the material can't be understood by mere mortals. I don't think that's enough of a reason.
I understand that you don't like my response. I don't think I was ranting. I just really like the openness of the web and abhor any attempt to control it. If you don't like the conversation, move along.
The feeling you get when you read about something computer-science or software-engineering related in mass media ("oh my god those idiot journalists can't get anything right") is probably very similar to what a physicist feels when she reads discussion by non-physitics.
Thanks, but I understand their point, I just disagree with it. I agree with you about the feelings, but I think that trying to restrict their speech is the wrong way to go about it. That's my position, unpopular as it may be.
There is a difference between "academic stuff should be discussed on academic sites only" and "government stuff should be discussed on government sites only": unlike government sites, everyone can open an academic site (if we define "academic site" by the choice of topics and moderation policy instead of by being endorsed by a brick-and-mortar university (I would e.g. call LtU an academic site)).
I think that limiting people's freedom of speech is exactly what censorship is.
Whether they have "no chance in hell" of understanding it is besides the point.