Hacker News Reader

Comment by wmf | Hacker News Reader

The headline seems a little alarmist; the article in question wasn't "censored" completely, it was just removed from Google. (I'll preemptively disagree with the argument that if a page is not Googleable it doesn't exist.)

View on HN

The fact that you had to employ the modifier "completely" to make your point suggests that the headline's use of the verb "censor" was defensible.

You just rationalized all hyperbole.

Their post was obliterated. Could not be found. Ceased to exist. The DMCA take-down notice removed TechDirt from Google. TechDirt was erased.

All completely true if you don't require modifiers to be stated. I'd prefer that HN doesn't turn into a tabloid.

This is a wonderful linguistic cul-de-sac you've steered into, but the fact remains that "censor" means "suppress"; it does not mean "eradicate". When the government of China or Acela's internet filtering vendor block a site, they are censoring it, without removing it from the internet. The same principle applies here.

Indeed - it was only eradicated from Google's search results. My point is that that's a modifier, therefore the use of it is defensible...? That's an objective claim that's completely ridiculous when taken to other contexts.

Whether it's alarmist / excessive is subjective. And, since either would be technically correct, it probably has more to do with implied meanings or the common use of a word, and not the dictionary definition. Their usage of it is certainly defensible, but that has little to do with whether or not a modifier would make it more accurate.

No, not "all hyperbole." Just the title.

I think we agree that the people who issued this DMCA notice have taken action to suppress content they find objectionable. I can also understand that 'censorship' is a Bad Thing (TM) and people want to limit its use to only the most extreme cases.

But that leaves a problem: what do you call behavior like this?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com