"Officer" in that context means government. Word usage does change over time, but valid concepts do not. Dictionaries report common word usage, not definitions of valid concepts. Misusing words does not make the thoughts coherent or make invalid concepts become valid. "Censorship" is increasingly misused for hyperbole or worse, but dictionaries still do not include private property as censorship, they only leave "suppression" of speech vaguely unspecified, with no explicit mention of mixing use of private property with government action.

There is a psychological use of 'censor' as motive, as opposed to action. Someone can desire to censor even though he lacks the power, and whatever limited actions he can take he may be operating on a psychology of suppressing whatever he can with no thought of choosing how to use his private property.

Facebook, Google, and some of the others are now actively lobbying for government censorship -- not (yet) full totalitarianism, but they want government power like current European-Canadian censorship banning certain thoughts or motives, applied as "guidelines" to the internet in the name of being anti "extremist".

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...

https://thehill.com/opinion/civil-rig...

Anti-freedom of speech is a very ugly trend among both the left and many conservatives. If dictionaries report this as 'freedom of speech', it's Orwell, not valid concepts.

I like to know how words have been changed over the years.
From an American dictionary in 1899:
“Censor” noun
“An officer who examines books or newspapers before they are printed, and whose permission is necessary for their publication.”

There is no verb definition.

Private businesses cannot and do not "censor". Choosing how to use one's own property is not suppression of someone else who has no right to use it. It is not censorship. Government action and private use of private property cannot by combined into the same concept about "speech". Extending "censorship" to private businesses is an illogical, invalid concept. It is what Ayn Rand called the fallacy of the "package deal'.

This has been explained several times and you continue to ignore it. Repeating the misuse of the concept 'censorship' over and over as your "point" is non-responsive and is not an argument. Free speech includes the right to not associate with or support something one disagrees with. That includes private businesses. It is not "censorship".

This forum has guidelines, too. It is a privately run forum for a specific purpose. That is not censorship, despite the claim by a militant religionist who insisted that not allowing his evangelizing was illegal religious discrimination. (He didn't last long.)

The hit and run clowns who rotely 'downvote' every rejection of their anti-free speech, anti-private property, anti-Ayn Rand populist demagoguery is not an argument either. They cannot engage in logical discussion, refuse to respond, and yet militantly pollute this Ayn Rand forum with their emotionalism.

My point is when applying your statement,
“Censorship is the opposite of freedom of speech”,
I agree, when only applying that to the American government. The U.S. government is limited by the first amendment, so they must allow and even protect freedom of speech and can not legally censor. But, I do not agree when applying that to American businesses for example. Private businesses are not limited by the First Amendment. Many can and do legally censor. They can do this because of property rights.

If all governments were limited in the same way I would like that very much. But that’s not reality.

Populist demagogues repeatedly using "that word 'censor' again" does not make a private business's choice of how its property is used "censorship". No, it is not "George Orwell". There seems to be no end to the hysterics' progressively increasing hyperbole.

There's no need to spin anything.
There's no censorship in your link.

It is not censorship.
Only the government can engage in censorship.

You mean how a social media company exercises it's rights, which is completely legitimate?
What is exactly is the "whistle blowing" aspects here?

Hit and run militant conservatives opposed to private property and Ayn Rand are again systematically 'downvoting' posts refuting them and which they cannot answer.

"FIOA", the Freedom of Information Act called "FOIA", is a law for obtaining public information from Federal agencies, not rifling through private organizations. Pinterest is a private organization and cannot engage in "censorship".

This "Project Veritas" religious conservative is a demagogue. This isn't about a "brave man who came forward". It's a one-sided activist attack promoted in the name of "breaking news", acknowledged to be against what it calls "anti-Christian bias", as if private companies are required to support their religion.

Little has been reported on the actual algorithms, which are more sophisticated than single key words, but Pinterest has said that it does not allow "medical misinformation and conspiracies that turn individuals and facilities into targets for harassment or violence". "Live Action" is a dogmatic anti-women's rights religious organization opposing all abortion, beginning at conception, with no exceptions, and is spreading all kinds of nonsense to stampede activists. There is all kinds of discussion on the internet about abortion, which is not "censored", but no one has a duty to support these irrationalists be giving them a platform to incite gullible, breathless followers. This "Project Veritas" drama and hyperbole in the name of "news" is enough to make your ears wilt.

Good point Freedom. Although I think Judicial Watch is doing some FIOA stuff on them right now. Project Veritas is doing good work to try to open the eyes of those who seem incapable of grasping that someone who removes material purely because of the perceived politics, while allowing other material that clearly violates their TOS, but is of the desired political bent, is indeed, censorship.

This is about 30 seconds of a Project Veritas video that YouTube has a complaint on,
“This is legitimately newsworthy information without which there may not be the story that it is. We aren't daxing anybody we are reporting facts the public has a right to know. I mean, we're getting beyond the George Orwell analogy and this is becoming Kafka esque. They want us to censor or blur the very thing that proves that the people inside the company took the action that makes it newsworthy.”

And there is that word “censor” again.

There are no legal grounds for such freedom of speech lawsuits. The First Amendment restricts government censorship, it does not control private companies use of their own property, which violates their right to freedom of speech. The populist collectivist conservatives are seeking new anti-business anti-free speech laws.

Calling "many examples" of publishers "who censor material" "censorship" is a circular argument. You have ignored the meaning of the concept in terms of essentials. Private companies choosing how to use their own property do not have the power to silence someone. Government censors do.

Definitions are not arbitrary and cannot package contradictory actions without regard to essentials. A "basic American dictionary" usage expanded to include contradictions is not a valid concept. You continue to ignore that.

There is no excuse for populist conservatives to demand government controls over private publishers in the name of "freedom of speech" by calling them "censors". That is a contradiction exploited for collectivist statism. It helps the left. It is the opposite of Ayn Rand and what this forum is for.

My basic argument was the basic American dictionary definition and basic concept of “censor”, which mentions nothing about free speech, but you rejected that. I mentioned publishers who censor material. I showed many examples of today’s social media censoring people.
...

You seem to think that only the government can censor so we should just agree to disagree, unless you believe that social media companies have become governments.

Repeatedly posting links to conservatives falsely claiming to have been "censored" contrary to a right of "free speech" is not responsive. "There is that word 'censor' again" is not an argument.

Repeatedly posting links to conservatives falsely claiming to have been "censored" contrary to a right of "free speech" is not responsive. These are all instances of private companies removing posts contrary to their own policies, not "censorship".

Censorship applies to any government, not just the US government. It does not apply to private property. The difference between private action using one's own private property versus government power has been explained several times and you have not addressed that.

Just saw this,
“YouTube has just censored my video about censorship. Yes seriously.”
https://youtu.be/N4E5laxlehY

“Censorship is the opposite of freedom of speech”
I disagree. When only applied to the American government, I agree.

This is about 30 seconds of a Project Veritas video that YouTube has a complaint on,
“This is legitimately newsworthy information without which there may not be the story that it is. We aren't daxing anybody we are reporting facts the public has a right to know. I mean, we're getting beyond the George Orwell analogy and this is becoming Kafka esque. They want us to censor or blur the very thing that proves that the people inside the company took the action that makes it newsworthy.”

And there is that word “censor” again.

Your snide "spin" comment, like your previous misrepresentation about "conspiracy" and your militant populist statism, does not address anything I have written or anything Ayn Rand wrote about censorship and freedom of speech and private property in the references you were provided. Neither does the youtube video you linked to.

You can criticize Twitter for what it will not allow on its site all you want to. Twitter's actions surrounding the militant anti-abortion group's propaganda is not a violation of freedom of speech and not "censorship" no matter how many times you keep repeating it. A private company has a free speech right to support or not support any speech it wants to for any reason it chooses or none at all -- just like the bakers being persecuted for what they will not do..

I'm wondering why there is not a gofundme to fund the investigation and class action lawsuits against the social media companies. Or would that violate gofundme's TOS?