Censorship can only be committed by the government. The fact that facebook is complying with requests from governments is both the right and responsibility of facebook.
> Censorship can only be committed by the government.
False. Heck, the modern understanding of censorship is strongly influenced by the (officially, still continuing, but greatly reduced in significance even within the Catholic community) official censorship practice of the Catholic Church.
Now, there are certainly consideration that apply tomstaye censorship that may not apply equally to non-state censorship, but state censorship isn't the only kind of censorship.
No, it wasn't. The Catholic Church had separate-from-the-state but binding authority in some areas of life, and something like extraterritoriality in much of the Western world, but it wasn't the government ever over any but a few relatively small parts of the Western World (well, technically, never over any of it, though certain clerical positions were conjoined to positions of state authority, either lower in the feudal heirarchy or, occasionally, actual sovereignties like the papal states or one of the co-princes of Andorra.)
Facebook is bigger than some governments. It deals with governments almost as a peer. No newspaper baron of the 20th century ever had such power. Not Murdoch. Not Hearst.
You've been using HN primarily for ideological and political battle. That's an abuse of the site, and we ban accounts that do it, so would you please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and use the site as intended?
Actually I use it primarily to read technical articles posted here and I reply to comments on here whatever the subject. Nothing I said was untrue and I was quite fair in fact to either of the two sides described in my post.
I will refrain from causing any future concern from you or anyone else, since I don't mean to hurt anyone's feelings.
