It's the original sense.
> Censorship enforced by the state is something distinctly different from editorial control exercised by private entities.
Yes, government censorship is different in important ways than censorship by a publishing or distributing entity, but both are censorship (and they are also similar in important ways.)
> When the single word can represent either concept (and other related concepts) ambiguity and confusion isn't far behind.
Heavy water is different from drinking water in some quite important ways, but its not at all a problem that both are identified with the word "water", because we can use more than one word when the differentiating features are important to the discussion.
> I used to argue that 'censorship' should be interpreted as something done by governments and enforced by the legal system but that battle has been lost.
That battle was lost centuries ago. What the censor librorum does in granting, or denying, the nihil obstat has always been censorship, even where the Catholic Church is not an established Church and so is in now way part of the government.
> Now the unqualified 'censorship' can mean just about any sort of content restrictions and as such is almost useless in its unqualified form.
It has pretty much always meant that, and just because the general sense of censorship is not something you are interested in talking about doesn't mean it's not useful.
It's certainly less useful than distinguishing between specific forms of censorship. As you concede yourself:
> Yes, government censorship is different in important ways than censorship by a publishing or distributing entity
The context (the article) is clearly about the latter, specific form.
Or, to expand on your example: When discussing an article about nuclear fusion, the distinction between heavy water and drinking water certainly is more useful then the observation that both are identified with the word "water".
But that is really ancillary to my point that in order to communicate clearly about the public policy issues involved it is important to avoid the generic use of the term because that obfuscates the arguments making it harder to explore the issues.
In particular I think that in the US context, 1st Amendment proscriptions regarding freedom of speech and of the press are often implicitly assumed to be reasons why Google, for example, shouldn't be able to have a restrictive editorial policy. The negative aspects of censorship in the 1st Amendment sense are misleadingly attached to censorship in the editorial sense.
Sure it is possible to talk about 'censorship' in the 'general sense' but that is uninteresting to me and I would argue isn't very helpful in understanding the distinct aspects of different types of 'censorship'.
The very presence of anti-censorship in the 1st amendment is the reason many people in the US get outraged when companies censor views. They view free speech as a fundamental right, even though the 1st amendment only applies to the government.
No, it's not. The value of free expression and the concept of the marketplace of ideas to which it is essential predates and goes beyond the 1st Amendment. The 1st Amendment isn't the cause, it's a product of the same cause.
Though it's a lot trickier to apply the concept to private censorship, which is both, in one sense, an exercise of the right of free speech and, potentially, a restriction on it in some cases. Government censorship is a lot more of a clear issue (even if there are issues of drawing the precise boundary.)
Free speech is a fundamental right, which is why every Western democracy at least pays lip service to the idea.
Nope. The original "censors" were Roman magistrates who enforced public morals. They're called censors because they were also responsible for the census. The government part of censorship has been baked in from the very coining of the word.
That is the original use of the Latin word "censor"; the use of "censor", even in Latin (in part, because Catholic Church), had expanded considerably in the millenium+ between the fall of Rome and the coining of the English word "censorship".
Latin and English are different languages, and "censor" and "censorship" are different words.
It's stupid to restrict your definitions by intent. Treat the restriction of information as the problem itself, rather than the fact that it was done with any specific motive.
If Google blocks my content or otherwise refuses to host my content I have lots of other options. Your assertion that Google is a monopoly is this regard is not accurate.
So basically your "imprisonment" qualification on the definition of censorship is completely arbitrary and does not stand up to critical scrutiny.
If Google takes down my video, and I publish it elsewhere, there's no real risk of anything. Maybe I'll lose my Google account if the video was particularly heinous, but that's about as far as it goes.
The imprisonment qualification is a very real difference.
More importantly this doesn't address the concept, which is that it's dumb to attach motive to the definition of a problem. It's important when assessing criminal liability, but if you're just using it as an excuse to ignore the detrimental effects of censorship, which haven't changed, just because the mechanisms have, then you're just being profoundly counterproductive.
Forfeit is not the right word. Nobody is taking your business away from you, it's just not a profitable business.
> monopoly which youtube absolutely is
That is begging the question. There are plenty of sites that let you share video like youtube[0]
[0] http://www.freemake.com/blog/top-7-free-video-sharing-sites/
If you own a platform on which other people do business which is a natural monopoly, you shouldn't be allowed to regulate the content on that platform. Youtube is a natural monopoly. It's fairly obvious that this is so, but I will elaborate anyway.
The value of youtube is the number of people use the site. The number of people on the site encourages people to host their content on that site, more people hosting content on the site encourages more people to use the site. In this situation there will always be exactly one winner.
users can't easily (and sometimes at all) switch to a different internet provider, which is why net neutrality is important.
youtube just seems to be the most monetized platform for the time being, but i don't think it's anywhere near being monopoly in terms of access to users.
I use the following analogy for the latter: Would you call it censorship if you decide to remove the graffiti someone spraypainted on your car?
No one has the obligation to provide for unrestricted distribution of opinion/information. Especially not state-financed media, as they have a stake in education of their citizens.
Our markets are usually regulated to make sure monopolies don't arise, and if they do, they may be forced to downscale, split or open market for competition.
This is not the case with major social media sites, that answer only to the mighty dollar.
It's more like you having a potluck, or cook-off, meaning anyone can come and join and contribute food.
But then someone prepares Surströmming, Hákarl or Shiokara, which is technically food (content) that someone might like. It will now smell all over your potluck and have a detrimental effect on peoples view of it. You have previously reserved the right to turn away participants, and you exercise that right.
The message of the grafitti is not what people care about, it's that it was painted in the first place.
Your analogy only works if you have a big sign outside your house saying "Please paint my car".
So my analogy still works.
The difference is that on YouTube some "graffiti" are permitted while others aren't whereas on my car, none are permitted.
YouTube is acting as a media company while pretending to be a platform. They're engaging in censorship since they're removing things on political grounds. Now, if the rules were always "no vegan videos, no violence, only kittens," it would be a different story.
I would agree with you, but Youtube isn't a place where 'editorial' happens. Youtube isn't a TV channel or a blog with a set of editors. It's a free-for-all place for hosting videos. While I have no problem with Youtube removing content they don't like (it's their website, they're free to do what they like), it does go further than exercising 'editorial control'
These companies with all the eyeballs are now able to exert an influence on people's lives in a way that companies rarely have been able to do in the past (barring media, which the censorship claim was a bit deal).
So it is that nowadays censorship on something like youtube has become a big deal.
Your response is a nice example of the problem I was pointing out. You are conflating lots of different concerns by assuming that 'censorship' as an unqualified term accurately expresses the particular nuances of the issue you are concerned about.
I'm just arguing for clarity in communication. Acting as if Google's editorial choices and speech codes at private universities and content filters on library computers and government efforts to squelch speech are all adequately summarized by the word "censorship" is harmful to clarity in communication.
What I do care about is the idea behind censorship. I will not engage you in any conversation in which you try to use the definition to argue against the point I made.
So if you would like to have a discussion about the ideas behind censorship and why the worry is valid for these large websites such as FB and Youtube, I'm all for it.
But if you're going to repeat that the definition of the word precludes anything but governments, then I'm not interested.
Read it. I promise it is worth your time.
I used to argue that 'censorship' should be interpreted as something done by governments and enforced by the legal system but that battle has been lost. Now the unqualified 'censorship' can mean just about any sort of content restrictions and as such is almost useless in its unqualified form.