Occurred to me too as a huge Pratchett fan myself - but in truth I suspect it's one of those jokes many people have made independently before and since
I do think this is a good breakdown especially for the kinds of issues we discuss around here - though at the same time, I increasingly think it's best to avoid getting bogged down in semantics.
There are situations in which I'd use a different definition of censorship, for a different kind of conversation, or at least in which I wouldn't object to other people doing so.
I was thinking the other day about the example of a company that produces family-friendly edits of movies. That's content moderation in your breakdown, which is what I'd usually call it to. But to be fair, the person there who goes through the audio to bleep/dub bad language probably literally has "Censor" in their job title, and the job they do has been referred to as "censorship" longer than I've been alive.
That is of course largely irrelevant to the kind of thing we're discussing here - but I raise it as an example of how, yeah, the argument some put forth that we are trying to override a very basic and accepted dictionary definition by insisting that lots of things "aren't censorship" can indeed carry some weight in some contexts. It's a word that can be used in different ways.
(None of that excuses the people who actively try to use it in a manipulatively vague way, or who shout "censorship!" as a one-word argument against perfectly reasonable acts of content moderation)
I think it's perfectly fine if someone wants to use the word "censorship" in the broad dictionary verb sense of any act, by anyone, of removing content that they for any reason consider objectionable. You are right, that IS the most basic definition.
But here's the thing: if that's the meaning of the word we're using, then "censorship" is not even slightly remarkable. It happens every day, in a million different contexts, most of which are completely unobjectionable - from a comedy club kicking out a drunk heckler, to a daytime news broadcast blurring out footage of a naked person, to a parent telling their child not to say a bad word. And so if that's the meaning we're using, simply calling something "censorship" is not by itself a particularly compelling condemnation or objection.
And so when someone complains about "censorship" with the very clear implication that they mean it is obviously, automatically objectionable and perhaps even illegal, what they are necessarily implying is that they do not mean the broadly generic dictionary definition of it as a verb, the thing that happens every day all the time - they must be thinking of a more specific cultural/political definition of the concept of "censorship" as a presumed evil that must be fought in every incarnation.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Depends on how you're defining 'conservative'
Jordan Peterson, despite all his polemics about the evils of "compelled speech", once threatened to sue a writer and magazine unless they published an apology to him - i.e. he openly and unashamedly attempted to compel speech from someone using the threat of government intervention.
He's not a "classical liberal" he's just a deluded and deeply troubled hypocrite.
I was certainly using "publishers" as a shorthand, perhaps a bit sloppily so - I was referring to something both more broad (not just book publishers, but other copyright-based industries as well) and more narrow (the generally-huge corporate publishers, record labels, etc. that are primarily behind the push for stronger copyright laws) than you describe.
Though I will note that, when it comes to the control of publishing and the legal enforcement of the right to copy, it would be more accurate to say "authors are an extension of publishers". Copyright grew out of printing press monopolies, and the idea of authors having an inherent exclusive right to copy their work was sort of backfilled in as it evolved.
These case studies are designed to be extremely neutral. We are outlining what happened. Companies face these decisions every day, and they are often challenging, raise complex questions, trigger unforeseen side effects, or just don't go well. We're documenting these kinds of incidents to help understand the challenges of content moderation and highlight the difficult tradeoffs, so it can be done better - not to make the case that it's "futile".
Content moderation is never going to be easy or simple. These case studies aim to help people navigate it.
Notice that last part of the definition - "typically one that is a minority or marginalized"
Even in such a neutrally worded definition, it is necessary to point out that discrimination against a marginalized minority is distinct.
If you want to say, "it all falls under the broad umbrella of racism in the most abstract sense" then fine. If you want to say "racism is racism" - as in, it's all exactly the same, and there is no meaningful distinction to be drawn between a white person's expression of hate against black people, and a black person's expression of frustration against white people, then... no. And I think you know that's incorrect.
Again, I'll just reiterate that I think you are operating from a very basic conception of racism - not a useless or never-applicable one, but an extremely incomplete one - and I recommend reading some of the more contemporary social scientific literature on the subject, such as what I linked in my other reply.
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: April 11th - 17th
Re:
Oh whoops - that second one is a broken link causing some of the text to drop out. Fixing (and the typo too) thanks!
On the post: Game Jam Winner Spotlight: Fish Magic
Re: bad link
whoops, thanks!
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
Occurred to me too as a huge Pratchett fan myself - but in truth I suspect it's one of those jokes many people have made independently before and since
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
I do think this is a good breakdown especially for the kinds of issues we discuss around here - though at the same time, I increasingly think it's best to avoid getting bogged down in semantics.
There are situations in which I'd use a different definition of censorship, for a different kind of conversation, or at least in which I wouldn't object to other people doing so.
I was thinking the other day about the example of a company that produces family-friendly edits of movies. That's content moderation in your breakdown, which is what I'd usually call it to. But to be fair, the person there who goes through the audio to bleep/dub bad language probably literally has "Censor" in their job title, and the job they do has been referred to as "censorship" longer than I've been alive.
That is of course largely irrelevant to the kind of thing we're discussing here - but I raise it as an example of how, yeah, the argument some put forth that we are trying to override a very basic and accepted dictionary definition by insisting that lots of things "aren't censorship" can indeed carry some weight in some contexts. It's a word that can be used in different ways.
(None of that excuses the people who actively try to use it in a manipulatively vague way, or who shout "censorship!" as a one-word argument against perfectly reasonable acts of content moderation)
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
I think it's perfectly fine if someone wants to use the word "censorship" in the broad dictionary verb sense of any act, by anyone, of removing content that they for any reason consider objectionable. You are right, that IS the most basic definition.
But here's the thing: if that's the meaning of the word we're using, then "censorship" is not even slightly remarkable. It happens every day, in a million different contexts, most of which are completely unobjectionable - from a comedy club kicking out a drunk heckler, to a daytime news broadcast blurring out footage of a naked person, to a parent telling their child not to say a bad word. And so if that's the meaning we're using, simply calling something "censorship" is not by itself a particularly compelling condemnation or objection.
And so when someone complains about "censorship" with the very clear implication that they mean it is obviously, automatically objectionable and perhaps even illegal, what they are necessarily implying is that they do not mean the broadly generic dictionary definition of it as a verb, the thing that happens every day all the time - they must be thinking of a more specific cultural/political definition of the concept of "censorship" as a presumed evil that must be fought in every incarnation.
On the post: Gaming Like It's 1925: Check Out The Early Bird Entries In Our Public Domain Game Jam
Re: Re: more games
That one is from the creator of The 24th Kandinsky, winner of last year's best analog game prize - it's sure to be great!
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
whoops my bad! fixed
On the post: Gaming Like It's 1925: Last Week To Join The Public Domain Game Jam!
Re: Claiming responsibility.
Aha, it was you, thanks! We noticed that someone had been making those recommendations in people's itch comments - much appreciated
On the post: A Few More Thoughts On The Total Deplatforming Of Parler & Infrastructure Content Moderation
Re: Re: Re: Re: Depends on how you're defining 'conservative'
Jordan Peterson, despite all his polemics about the evils of "compelled speech", once threatened to sue a writer and magazine unless they published an apology to him - i.e. he openly and unashamedly attempted to compel speech from someone using the threat of government intervention.
He's not a "classical liberal" he's just a deluded and deeply troubled hypocrite.
On the post: Gaming Like It's 1925: Get Ready For The Next Public Domain Game Jam
Re: I would love...
Oh I'm sure we'll get more than a few Gatsby entries! Can't wait to see what people come up with
On the post: Massachusetts Poised To Become The Next State To (Temporarily) Ban Facial Recognition Tech
Re: off topic - broken links
Hmm, definitely something weird going on with he prev/next links on some posts - thanks for catching this, we're looking into it!
On the post: This Week In Techdirt History: November 22nd - 28th
Re:
fixed, thanks!
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: The Truth about Techdirt
Damn, I almost wish my life actually was the high-octane international espionage drama that this lunatic thinks it is.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re:
My bad! Not sure how I mixed that up.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Just a reminder...
I was certainly using "publishers" as a shorthand, perhaps a bit sloppily so - I was referring to something both more broad (not just book publishers, but other copyright-based industries as well) and more narrow (the generally-huge corporate publishers, record labels, etc. that are primarily behind the push for stronger copyright laws) than you describe.
Though I will note that, when it comes to the control of publishing and the legal enforcement of the right to copy, it would be more accurate to say "authors are an extension of publishers". Copyright grew out of printing press monopolies, and the idea of authors having an inherent exclusive right to copy their work was sort of backfilled in as it evolved.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Facebook Responds To A Live-streamed Mass Shooting (March 2019)
Re: Authoritarian Apologist?
Pardon?
These case studies are designed to be extremely neutral. We are outlining what happened. Companies face these decisions every day, and they are often challenging, raise complex questions, trigger unforeseen side effects, or just don't go well. We're documenting these kinds of incidents to help understand the challenges of content moderation and highlight the difficult tradeoffs, so it can be done better - not to make the case that it's "futile".
Content moderation is never going to be easy or simple. These case studies aim to help people navigate it.
On the post: New Face Masks: The First & Fourth Emojiments
Re: Ironic from Leigh
(Plus, having been sued in the US for libel along with Techdirt, I've personally benefited from the protections of the First Amendment!)
On the post: New Face Masks: The First & Fourth Emojiments
Re: Ironic from Leigh
I'm just the one who knows how to use Illustrator :)
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Talking About Racism On Social Media (2019)
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Notice that last part of the definition - "typically one that is a minority or marginalized"
Even in such a neutrally worded definition, it is necessary to point out that discrimination against a marginalized minority is distinct.
If you want to say, "it all falls under the broad umbrella of racism in the most abstract sense" then fine. If you want to say "racism is racism" - as in, it's all exactly the same, and there is no meaningful distinction to be drawn between a white person's expression of hate against black people, and a black person's expression of frustration against white people, then... no. And I think you know that's incorrect.
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Talking About Racism On Social Media (2019)
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Again, I'll just reiterate that I think you are operating from a very basic conception of racism - not a useless or never-applicable one, but an extremely incomplete one - and I recommend reading some of the more contemporary social scientific literature on the subject, such as what I linked in my other reply.
Next >>