6 ms·

Censor: Highly targeted and specific, usually along the lines of communication. Like Xi and Winnie the Pooh. The US doesn't censor(?) Blacklist: Broader, usual

Censor: Highly targeted and specific, usually along the lines of communication. Like Xi and Winnie the Pooh. The US doesn't censor(?) Blacklist: Broader, usually applied to products and companies. China blacklisted Facebook. The US blacklisted Huawei.

C14L 7y ago
> The US doesn't censor(?) Any government will try to censor at some point. The difference is that Western countries have independent judicial branches with the power to stop the government from censoring.
- gpm 7y ago
  This strikes me as a pretty meaningless statement. The judicial branch is part of the government, if they stop the government from censoring (or doing anything else) then the government doesn't censor (or do anything else).
mijamo 7y ago
Every state censors things in some way, he difference is what is censored and how much impact it has obviously. Censorship can also describe private actions such as Twitter/Facebook refusing some ideas, and is that case is vastly vastly present in every country.
- jayrot 7y ago
  > Censorship can also describe private actions such as Twitter/Facebook refusing some ideas, That's only true in the vernacular. True "censorship" is only relevant to government suppression. Individuals or private corporations are under no legal obligation to allow certain ideas/topics. *That is to say, I could perfectly well create some new social network messaging app that specifically does not allow any posts about honeybees, screwdrivers, or Turkey. The government could not prohibit those topics.
  - mlyle 7y ago
    > Individuals or private corporations are under no legal obligation to allow certain ideas/topics. (Though it does become problematic as communication channels are concentrated in a few parties hands, which is why, in part, we have things like the common carrier doctrine. In the end, if one party accumulates enough power and uses it in a way that it is oppressive, whether that party is a government, a warlord, or a corporation).
- mlindner 7y ago
  I'm really not a big fan of this kind of moral relativism. The US (though Donald Trump seems to want to) does not "blacklist" or "censor" to silence political dissent. China does and always has, heavily, to the point of nonsense.
giiguughh 7y ago
People really believed the Winnie the Pooh story? I thought that’s just a joke
est 7y ago
China didn't prohibit Chinese people or companies from spending money on advertising on facebook. US blacklisted Chinese companies from buying US products. It's a subtle difference.

C14L 7y ago

> The US doesn't censor(?) Any government will try to censor at some point. The difference is that Western countries have independent judicial branches with the power to stop the government from censoring.

gpm 7y ago
This strikes me as a pretty meaningless statement. The judicial branch is part of the government, if they stop the government from censoring (or doing anything else) then the government doesn't censor (or do anything else).

mijamo 7y ago

Every state censors things in some way, he difference is what is censored and how much impact it has obviously. Censorship can also describe private actions such as Twitter/Facebook refusing some ideas, and is that case is vastly vastly present in every country.

jayrot 7y ago
> Censorship can also describe private actions such as Twitter/Facebook refusing some ideas, That's only true in the vernacular. True "censorship" is only relevant to government suppression. Individuals or private corporations are under no legal obligation to allow certain ideas/topics. *That is to say, I could perfectly well create some new social network messaging app that specifically does not allow any posts about honeybees, screwdrivers, or Turkey. The government could not prohibit those topics.
- mlyle 7y ago
  > Individuals or private corporations are under no legal obligation to allow certain ideas/topics. (Though it does become problematic as communication channels are concentrated in a few parties hands, which is why, in part, we have things like the common carrier doctrine. In the end, if one party accumulates enough power and uses it in a way that it is oppressive, whether that party is a government, a warlord, or a corporation).
mlindner 7y ago
I'm really not a big fan of this kind of moral relativism. The US (though Donald Trump seems to want to) does not "blacklist" or "censor" to silence political dissent. China does and always has, heavily, to the point of nonsense.

giiguughh 7y ago

People really believed the Winnie the Pooh story? I thought that’s just a joke

est 7y ago

China didn't prohibit Chinese people or companies from spending money on advertising on facebook. US blacklisted Chinese companies from buying US products. It's a subtle difference.