Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Why is this being referred to so constantly as censorship?

Censorship is preventing someone else from speaking. Suggested keywords are Google's speech to us. Unlike search index content, Google is responsible for their contents and will beheld accountable when they are inappropriate. The only party being censored by filtering keywords is Google.

If you really, really, want to call this censorship then you have to also apply a "safe-harbor" type principle to it where you remove responsibility from Google for what the suggestions contain. I don't think anybody suggests that would be a good idea. And I bet the same crowd bleating censorship would be up in arms about finding inappropriate terms suggested if Google didn't do this.



> Censorship is preventing someone else from speaking.

One could argue the recording lobbies are preventing Google from "speaking", by means of legal intimidation. Legal censorship is still censorship.

Preventing someone else from speaking is a form of censorship, but censorship includes all means of suppressing communication.


On the other hand, the idea of search engine companies blocking autocomplete keywords is a new concept that isn't taken into account by existing definitions of censorship. Regardless of how you define censorship, the core concept is that censorship is blocking content that is deemed inappropriate. Google is essentially blocking content that is deemed inappropriate under some standard, so therefore it is censorship.

English is a constantly evolving language. Words' definitions aren't set in stone once they're entered into the dictionary.


Google is essentially blocking content that is deemed inappropriate under some standard, so therefore it is censorship.

A fun exercise: what else would count as censorship under this rather expanded definition? For instance, if I run a bookstore then am I "censoring" every book I don't carry?


Are you not carrying those books because you deem them inappropriate or because you simply don't have space for them all?


What if I'm not carrying them because I don't think they're good?


That's fine. To me, only the widespread and self-promoted idea that your bookstore is a channel for absolutely any public discourse (in the form of books for sale) would make your decision not to carry a book an act of censorship. This is why it is censorship when Amazon does not carry The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure, but not when Borders does not carry it.


I don't know. What if you're not carrying them because you don't think they're good?


I don't know, I didn't understand the point of the question in the first place.


Interesting because I didn't understand the point of your question in the first place either.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: