The most pervasive censorship is who and what social media companies decide to block or suppress. Even in places like China. It's deliberately harder to measure, but any censorship measurement that omits it is like measuring war casualties, but ignoring those on the front lines.
Not to minimize the impact of social media censorship, but one should really live in a country like Iran to grasp what pervasive censorship is. Most people born and raised in the relative freedoms provided in modern democratic systems have no clue what it feels like when you have such dictatorships. I say this because, looking at the current trends, we _could be_ heading in that direction, and the comparison is apt.
> You don't know what it feels like not because you're so free, but because you agree with the ruling regime on what it considers the most important questions.
We don’t know what it feels like because we collectively participate and decide what should be considered and what not _periodically_ and it’s possible to change it, evidently, with various degrees and velocity by voting.
> I would much prefer the dictatorship-style censorship, because our censorship is far, far more effective.
Case in point!
I’ve lived under both and can guarantee you don’t know what that dictatorship you so much yearn for has in their bag for you until it’s too late.
I guess he is not yearning for dictatorship, the style of censorship is the question. Preventing access to information is bad, but likely less harmful than deception.
Not a single one of my examples was committed by the government (except if you count funding Carnegie Mellon and MIT). But even in cases when they are, voting rarely helps: <a href="https://www.woes.blog/p/tgr-democracy" rel="nofollow">https://www.woes.blog/p/tgr-democracy
> you don’t know what that dictatorship you so much yearn for
Re-read my sentence. I don't yearn for a dictatorship, I yearn to blunt and make obvious the current secret, subtle censorship regime.
> has in their bag for you
Is it jail?
“White Lives Matter” Slogan Earns Two Dutch Men Imprisonment for Racism - <a href="https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news-corner/netherlands-jail-for-white-lives-matter-slogan/" rel="nofollow">https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news-corner/nether...
Activist ran race-hate sticker library, court told - <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c51zn2l33r9o" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c51zn2l33r9o -Stickers with text like "It's OK to be White" and "We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066". For which he was later convicted and jailed - <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-68448867" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-68448867
I repeat - you agree with the regime. You're floating in the river, letting it carry you where it pleases, while telling those swimming upstream that there is no current, nothing to struggle against.
Edit as reply because "posting too fast":
> How did all of these social media companies made a 180 suddenly after power shifts in Washington?
None of the racist or right-wing or white nationalist subreddits got unbanned, American Renaissance is still banned off Facebook and Youtube, Facebook still explicitly bans white nationalism, and other social media ban it implicitly as "hate speech", TikTok bans "white lives matter" [1], and promised to ban even more [2] (under Trump's 1st term), while wikipedia doesn't even bother to mention that as censorship [3]. All of this is still the case under the current Washington. The only exception is Twitter, after Musk bought it - there, American Renaissance got unbanned.
And a 180 would imply that these things are not only unbanned, but their opponents are banned.
So if you're going to just make stuff up, i.e. lie, then I won't waste my time with you.
Its true, all usually highly conplex world events are dumbed down to an insanely infantile level that carefully omits anything that may poorly reflect on corporate interests.
Also obvious is that all news is made in a short list of countries. Everywhere else the best you can hope for are terrible events.
You will only get opinions from a small list of talking heads.
One might imagine populating the media with nothing but professors. Each field has new stuff every week. In stead you get Adam Savage. The name isn't by acident.
I'm curious what trends you see towards censorship?
Elon presumably being an exemplar for current trends: Twitter is unarguably far less censored than it was before (though censorship is still present). And Meta took note and also turned down its censorship significantly in response.
The Epstein files, while far less than hoped for by many, are another example of a trend towards sharing far more sensitive info than has been typical by past administrations.
There are many good examples you could point to of increased authoritarianism, but censorship in particular seems to be on the backswing, if anything.
Edit: oof, it's extremely concerning that the comment below was flagged
It’s too soon for such a conclusion IMO. The pervasive Iran-like censorship I was talking about will rear its ugly head when those authoritarian regimes are established. It’s a tool and I can assure you it will be used extensively. This is nothing new really.
P.S. the Epstein files were just a cruel joke! I wouldn’t list it there.
There’s nothing simple about authoritarian control.
Who says we have less censorship? Sure people can tweet all kind of stuff without getting banned. Fine, but at the same time US president is removing news networks he doesn’t like from press briefings. That’s just one example. To say the censorship is in decline is baffling.
Multiple jurisdictions have tried to play the stupid games of "we'll make a dumb fuck law that creates problems for you, the website operator, and if you don't conform, we'll sinkhole you at ISP level". Platforms like Xitter and Telegram being the common early targets.
The "age verification" push is a big move in that direction in Western countries. "Think of the children" is an evergreen excuse for authoritarian measures.
>Twitter is unarguably far less censored than it was before (though censorship is still present). And Meta took note and also turned down its censorship significantly in response.
A publisher making editorial decisions is not censorship. You have no right to demand Twitter publish your speech. If you don't like their editorial policies, you are free to go elsewhere. You are not prevented from speaking or even prevented from reaching an audience. None of these platforms is a monopoly.
For my money, I would prefer to hang out somewhere where people don't openly celebrate the murder of my family. Would you deny me that right? If so, you are not on the side of freedom. I don't object to the existence of forums like /pol/ or today's Twitter; if you object to the existence of moderated forums like Twitter in its prime then you are the one restricting speech.
Today, we see flagrant examples of the literal government literally prohibiting people from speaking their minds. Literal masked thugs with literal guns are literally grabbing people off the streets. This is censorship like the Soviets did it.
Twitter has certainly relaxed its policies on racism and violence in recent years, and perhaps you think that's a good thing. But point out that they're paying Nazis to post about their hatred of Jews (an undisputed fact even if you object to the framing) and they'll file SLAPP suits to try to bankrupt you. They very much go in for censorship (the real kind, backed up by guys with guns) when it benefits them.
> A publisher making editorial decisions is not censorship. You have no right to compel other people to publish your speech. If you don't like Twitter's editorial policies, you are free to go elsewhere
When a social media deletes users posts because they cross a political line, it may not be government censorship, but it's very obviously still censorship.
It's very hard to take opinions like yours seriously because I know exactly how you'd react if all your HN posts were deleted because you're calling people "Nazis"
I exclusively use websites that "censor" their users. Millions upon millions of people are with me on this. Would you deny us our right to organize as we please?
>It's very hard to take opinions like yours seriously because I know exactly how you'd react if all your HN posts were deleted because you're calling people "Nazis"
If you deny that there are literal and unabashed Nazis on Twitter these days, you are wrong. I am not using the term as a pejorative; I am using it as a straightforward descriptor for people who post pictures of swastikas and SS officers, start their posts with "Hitler was right", have "1488" in their bios, and write my name (((like this))) every damn time. These sorts of people would not be offended by being called Nazis and are not shy about their desire to see me gassed to death. Twitter paid them to say these things and then tried to censor people who criticized them for it, and that's a fact.
> Would you deny us our right to organize as we please?
So you must really hate laws like the Online Safety Act and the Digital Services Act, that force platforms to censor vaguely-defined hate-speech, without a court order, or face ruinous fines. Literal government censorship, men with guns forcing private companies to silence citizens, denying you the right to organize as you please.
I mean, I assume you hate them. Based on your complaints about government interfering with individuals organizing as they please, you should hate them, but then you speak as if those laws don't exist, and you praise as exemplars of free speech and free association the very services those laws forces to censor. Maybe you just didn't know about them? And now that you do, you're going to protest these laws as fervently as you're protesting the other violations of free speech you mentioned in your posts?
> A publisher making editorial decisions is not censorship.
Are you really going to conflate publishing with operating a social media platform? Regardless, if those editorial decisions are meant to suppress a viewpoint, it is censorship - government censorship is only one kind.
> You have no right to demand Twitter publish your speech.
Nobody argued that what social media do is illegal, only that it counts as censorship.
like_any_other · · focus · HN ↗
geraneum · · focus · HN ↗
like_any_other · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
geraneum · · focus · HN ↗
We don’t know what it feels like because we collectively participate and decide what should be considered and what not _periodically_ and it’s possible to change it, evidently, with various degrees and velocity by voting.
> I would much prefer the dictatorship-style censorship, because our censorship is far, far more effective.
Case in point!
I’ve lived under both and can guarantee you don’t know what that dictatorship you so much yearn for has in their bag for you until it’s too late.
aaa_aaa · · focus · HN ↗
aaa_aaa · · focus · HN ↗
geraneum · · focus · HN ↗
It’s a mistake to separate these. They go hand in hand and mich further as you climb up the authoritarian ladder.
What do you think is the style of censorship in authoritarian regimes like Iran? Do you think it’s just preventing access?
like_any_other · · focus · HN ↗
Not a single one of my examples was committed by the government (except if you count funding Carnegie Mellon and MIT). But even in cases when they are, voting rarely helps: <a href="https://www.woes.blog/p/tgr-democracy" rel="nofollow">https://www.woes.blog/p/tgr-democracy
> you don’t know what that dictatorship you so much yearn for
Re-read my sentence. I don't yearn for a dictatorship, I yearn to blunt and make obvious the current secret, subtle censorship regime.
> has in their bag for you
Is it jail?
“White Lives Matter” Slogan Earns Two Dutch Men Imprisonment for Racism - <a href="https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news-corner/netherlands-jail-for-white-lives-matter-slogan/" rel="nofollow">https://europeanconservative.com/articles/news-corner/nether...
Activist ran race-hate sticker library, court told - <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c51zn2l33r9o" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c51zn2l33r9o -Stickers with text like "It's OK to be White" and "We will be a minority in our homeland by 2066". For which he was later convicted and jailed - <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-68448867" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-68448867
I repeat - you agree with the regime. You're floating in the river, letting it carry you where it pleases, while telling those swimming upstream that there is no current, nothing to struggle against.
Edit as reply because "posting too fast":
> How did all of these social media companies made a 180 suddenly after power shifts in Washington?
None of the racist or right-wing or white nationalist subreddits got unbanned, American Renaissance is still banned off Facebook and Youtube, Facebook still explicitly bans white nationalism, and other social media ban it implicitly as "hate speech", TikTok bans "white lives matter" [1], and promised to ban even more [2] (under Trump's 1st term), while wikipedia doesn't even bother to mention that as censorship [3]. All of this is still the case under the current Washington. The only exception is Twitter, after Musk bought it - there, American Renaissance got unbanned.
And a 180 would imply that these things are not only unbanned, but their opponents are banned.
So if you're going to just make stuff up, i.e. lie, then I won't waste my time with you.
[1] <a href="https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/tiktok-sparks-massive-backlash-after-it-bans-the-phrase-white-lives-matter-while-keeping-black-lives-matter-chinese-propaganda/ar-AA24RbWj" rel="nofollow">https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/tiktok-sparks-massive-b...
[2] <a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/tiktok-says-it-will-crack-down-on-anti-semitism-white-nationalism/" rel="nofollow">https://www.timesofisrael.com/tiktok-says-it-will-crack-down...
[3] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_TikTok" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_by_TikTok
geraneum · · focus · HN ↗
Interesting! How did all of these social media companies make a 180 suddenly after power shifts in Washington?
> You're floating in the river,…
Of course but this doesn’t have any bearing on what I said. We are talking about severity and type of censorship not its meaning.
theendisney · · focus · HN ↗
Also obvious is that all news is made in a short list of countries. Everywhere else the best you can hope for are terrible events.
You will only get opinions from a small list of talking heads.
One might imagine populating the media with nothing but professors. Each field has new stuff every week. In stead you get Adam Savage. The name isn't by acident.
howunfortunate · · focus · HN ↗
Elon presumably being an exemplar for current trends: Twitter is unarguably far less censored than it was before (though censorship is still present). And Meta took note and also turned down its censorship significantly in response.
The Epstein files, while far less than hoped for by many, are another example of a trend towards sharing far more sensitive info than has been typical by past administrations.
There are many good examples you could point to of increased authoritarianism, but censorship in particular seems to be on the backswing, if anything.
Edit: oof, it's extremely concerning that the comment below was flagged
geraneum · · focus · HN ↗
P.S. the Epstein files were just a cruel joke! I wouldn’t list it there.
howunfortunate · · focus · HN ↗
Surely they could get away with at the very least the same amount?
geraneum · · focus · HN ↗
There’s nothing simple about authoritarian control.
Who says we have less censorship? Sure people can tweet all kind of stuff without getting banned. Fine, but at the same time US president is removing news networks he doesn’t like from press briefings. That’s just one example. To say the censorship is in decline is baffling.
trombuance · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
ACCount39 · · focus · HN ↗
The "age verification" push is a big move in that direction in Western countries. "Think of the children" is an evergreen excuse for authoritarian measures.
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
qerghnui · · focus · HN ↗
A publisher making editorial decisions is not censorship. You have no right to demand Twitter publish your speech. If you don't like their editorial policies, you are free to go elsewhere. You are not prevented from speaking or even prevented from reaching an audience. None of these platforms is a monopoly.
For my money, I would prefer to hang out somewhere where people don't openly celebrate the murder of my family. Would you deny me that right? If so, you are not on the side of freedom. I don't object to the existence of forums like /pol/ or today's Twitter; if you object to the existence of moderated forums like Twitter in its prime then you are the one restricting speech.
Today, we see flagrant examples of the literal government literally prohibiting people from speaking their minds. Literal masked thugs with literal guns are literally grabbing people off the streets. This is censorship like the Soviets did it.
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu3q1eYyR1A" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zu3q1eYyR1A
<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/19/us/politics/trump-cnn-msnow-press-ban.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/19/us/politics/trump-cnn-msn...
<a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fcc-disney-abc-early-license-renewal-jimmy-kimmel-dei/" rel="nofollow">https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fcc-disney-abc-early-license-re...
<a href="https://www.aclum.org/cases/ozturk-v-trump/" rel="nofollow">https://www.aclum.org/cases/ozturk-v-trump/
<a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2026/07/31/professor-fired-teaching-political-story-sues-college" rel="nofollow">https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2026/07/31/p...
<a href="https://www.propublica.org/article/caught-in-crackdown-ice-cbp-doj-trump-arrests-convictions" rel="nofollow">https://www.propublica.org/article/caught-in-crackdown-ice-c...
Twitter has certainly relaxed its policies on racism and violence in recent years, and perhaps you think that's a good thing. But point out that they're paying Nazis to post about their hatred of Jews (an undisputed fact even if you object to the framing) and they'll file SLAPP suits to try to bankrupt you. They very much go in for censorship (the real kind, backed up by guys with guns) when it benefits them.
<a href="https://www.fire.org/news/fire-statement-x-corps-lawsuit-and-texass-investigation-media-matters-america-are-deeply" rel="nofollow">https://www.fire.org/news/fire-statement-x-corps-lawsuit-and...
howunfortunate · · focus · HN ↗
When a social media deletes users posts because they cross a political line, it may not be government censorship, but it's very obviously still censorship.
It's very hard to take opinions like yours seriously because I know exactly how you'd react if all your HN posts were deleted because you're calling people "Nazis"
qerghnui · · focus · HN ↗
>It's very hard to take opinions like yours seriously because I know exactly how you'd react if all your HN posts were deleted because you're calling people "Nazis"
If you deny that there are literal and unabashed Nazis on Twitter these days, you are wrong. I am not using the term as a pejorative; I am using it as a straightforward descriptor for people who post pictures of swastikas and SS officers, start their posts with "Hitler was right", have "1488" in their bios, and write my name (((like this))) every damn time. These sorts of people would not be offended by being called Nazis and are not shy about their desire to see me gassed to death. Twitter paid them to say these things and then tried to censor people who criticized them for it, and that's a fact.
Hell, I didn't even call this guy a Nazi:
<a href="https://tinyurl.com/5n94mk74" rel="nofollow">https://tinyurl.com/5n94mk74
FoundAnotherOne · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
like_any_other · · focus · HN ↗
So you must really hate laws like the Online Safety Act and the Digital Services Act, that force platforms to censor vaguely-defined hate-speech, without a court order, or face ruinous fines. Literal government censorship, men with guns forcing private companies to silence citizens, denying you the right to organize as you please.
I mean, I assume you hate them. Based on your complaints about government interfering with individuals organizing as they please, you should hate them, but then you speak as if those laws don't exist, and you praise as exemplars of free speech and free association the very services those laws forces to censor. Maybe you just didn't know about them? And now that you do, you're going to protest these laws as fervently as you're protesting the other violations of free speech you mentioned in your posts?
like_any_other · · focus · HN ↗
Are you really going to conflate publishing with operating a social media platform? Regardless, if those editorial decisions are meant to suppress a viewpoint, it is censorship - government censorship is only one kind.
> You have no right to demand Twitter publish your speech.
Nobody argued that what social media do is illegal, only that it counts as censorship.
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
bl00per · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
cindyllm · · focus · HN ↗
[dead]