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.
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
>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.
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 ↗
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
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...
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]