Media censors take the rules of the state into account, but they are primarily concerned with pressure groups, not the state. They are most definitely not state agents; that would violate the constitution.
The publisher of a website removing comments from it meets the same soft officialness standard as a newspaper declining to run articles on a particular topic, or a television network refusing to air episodes in which someone disagrees with the group but doesn't end up suffering for it (not an invented example, by the way -- that was a real element of a code governing children's cartoons).
The majority of censors are working to prevent state censure; they are primarily concerned with the state. The primary work they do is removing profanities and indecent images at the behest of the state.
"The primary work they do is removing profanities and indecent images at the behest of the state."
I'm sure that's the primary function of the Chinese government's Central Propaganda Department.
Censorship is when someone or some organisation who has power over you, control your ability to access information.
From the government regulating the content internet users can access deleting content contrary to the government's goals, to administrators of personal websites deleting comments by people espousing views, considered disagreeable by the owner of said website.
Except the government's power to censor you goes way farther than somebody on a private site deleting your comment. You're saying popguns and artillery exist in a continuous spectrum, and I'm saying they're completely different categories and should thus be treated differently.
The diameter of star R136a1 goes so much farther than a typical Red Dwarf. They might be different categories of stars, but they're both stars nonetheless.[1]
I'd say a personal website eliminating disagreeable views from comments is actual censorship, even if it's ability to silence views is a few magnitude orders smaller than state censorship.
If state censorship is an artillery, personal censorship is at least a zip gun, and it can injure someone.[2]
Who can it injure? The state can actually legally prevent you from saying something ("That is slander/libel") at the threat of punishment. I can just prevent you from saying that on my website. I can delete your comment on trowaweeritesgud.com, but I can't stop you from saying whatever ("Kumquats are a better fruit than mangos!") in the comments here, or on NPR, or from rolling up your own site and saying it there. These aren't just (massive) differences in scale, they're also massive differences in effectiveness of the injunction. That's what moves it into its own category.
You can't stop comments in NPR, and China can't stop people accessing information in a foreign country, bringing it back to China and providing it in person in a secret room either. They are massively different in scale, but that is not a reason to put them in different categories (same as with stars, there are massive differences between them in scale, but stars nonetheless)
Comments
Media censors take the rules of the state into account, but they are primarily concerned with pressure groups, not the state. They are most definitely not state agents; that would violate the constitution.
The publisher of a website removing comments from it meets the same soft officialness standard as a newspaper declining to run articles on a particular topic, or a television network refusing to air episodes in which someone disagrees with the group but doesn't end up suffering for it (not an invented example, by the way -- that was a real element of a code governing children's cartoons).
The majority of censors are working to prevent state censure; they are primarily concerned with the state. The primary work they do is removing profanities and indecent images at the behest of the state.
"The primary work they do is removing profanities and indecent images at the behest of the state."
I'm sure that's the primary function of the Chinese government's Central Propaganda Department.
Censorship is when someone or some organisation who has power over you, control your ability to access information.
From the government regulating the content internet users can access deleting content contrary to the government's goals, to administrators of personal websites deleting comments by people espousing views, considered disagreeable by the owner of said website.
Except the government's power to censor you goes way farther than somebody on a private site deleting your comment. You're saying popguns and artillery exist in a continuous spectrum, and I'm saying they're completely different categories and should thus be treated differently.
The diameter of star R136a1 goes so much farther than a typical Red Dwarf. They might be different categories of stars, but they're both stars nonetheless.[1]
I'd say a personal website eliminating disagreeable views from comments is actual censorship, even if it's ability to silence views is a few magnitude orders smaller than state censorship.
If state censorship is an artillery, personal censorship is at least a zip gun, and it can injure someone.[2]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R136a1#/media/File:The_sizes_o...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improvised_firearm#/media/File...
Who can it injure? The state can actually legally prevent you from saying something ("That is slander/libel") at the threat of punishment. I can just prevent you from saying that on my website. I can delete your comment on trowaweeritesgud.com, but I can't stop you from saying whatever ("Kumquats are a better fruit than mangos!") in the comments here, or on NPR, or from rolling up your own site and saying it there. These aren't just (massive) differences in scale, they're also massive differences in effectiveness of the injunction. That's what moves it into its own category.
You can't stop comments in NPR, and China can't stop people accessing information in a foreign country, bringing it back to China and providing it in person in a secret room either. They are massively different in scale, but that is not a reason to put them in different categories (same as with stars, there are massive differences between them in scale, but stars nonetheless)