On: We are closer to Bradbury’s dystopia than Orwell’s or Huxley’s

[slibhb]

The way you're using the words "suppress" and "restricted" is bizarre semantic bullshit designed to support your argument. The definition you linked to supports my argument.

> Your definition is so broad that anyone who declines to share anything ever is “censoring”.

No it's not. Individuals are not censoring when they decline to share something. A company or government may be, depending on why.

[awb → slibhb]

> The definition you linked to supports my argument.

I honestly don’t see how and if you decide to not explain then I guess we’re done.

Disney can censor their content because they own it and it can’t legally be reproduced or redistributed elsewhere. Otherwise, it’s really challenging for a private company to censor someone who can simply produce content elsewhere.

The reason I’m making a big deal about the semantics is that censorship and free speech are charged words that get people riled up, and for good reason. But they lose their meaning if we start applying them to temporary, minor restrictions rather than actual suppression.

It’s like saying you’re being censored if you can’t say whatever you want in the lobby of Spotify HQ. No, that’s private property and you don’t have that right. Go to the public square and say whatever you want there — no one is censoring you.

The idea that you can do or say whatever you want on private property is bizarre to me. That’s never been part of any country’s laws or cultural history.

When Rogan can’t say something on his own platform or in a public setting or 1 company controls the large majority of content distribution, then I’m with you 100% that that’s censorship. Until then it’s the market at work and non-monopolistic companies conducting business within the bounds of their contract. If you don’t like it, take your content and your business somewhere else, it’s a free country.