Talk:Internet censorship

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Internet censorship article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1: 30 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Human rights High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pornography High‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law High‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet High‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet culture High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Freedom of speech Mid‑importance

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Government High‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance).

Open (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen articles

Mass surveillance Mid‑importance

	Internet censorship is within the scope of WikiProject Mass surveillance, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of mass surveillance and mass surveillance-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.Mass surveillanceWikipedia:WikiProject Mass surveillanceTemplate:WikiProject Mass surveillanceMass surveillance articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 5 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TDLoy100.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edit: change DNS_poisoning to DNS_spoofing[edit]

This because the pop-up text does not work, but i am not sure if the redirect to DNS_spoofing is the cause of that. I like the term poisoning better in the context of the article. Maybe --> DNS_spoofing (poisoning)

BobRomeo (talk) 10:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Separate page for "Internet shutdowns"?[edit]

Question for editors - what would you think about creating a separate article specifically on "Internet shutdowns"? Right now THIS article on Internet censorship is very long and includes a substantial section on Internet_censorship#Internet_shutdowns.

Separately, there is an article on Internet outage that is trying to cover both "outages" that might be caused by technical issues (or DDoS attacks) and also covering "shutdowns" caused by government actions. There are two redirects for Internet shutdown and the plural Internet shutdowns that redirect to the Internet outage article.

What if we separated the two topics? The article on "Internet outages" could be focused more on technical outages. The other new article on "Internet shutdowns" could cover the cases where governments mandate closure of Internet access. Some of the text from Internet_censorship#Internet_shutdowns could be merged into that new article, which could allow this very long article to be a bit shorter.

Thoughts? Comments? I'd be glad to take a start on a new page if others agree. - Dyork (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any neutral datas?[edit]

The main source is freedomhouse, but this is not a good and not neutral source. --2A02:8389:2181:A400:880F:40DC:10AB:7D5C (talk) 15:51, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need neutral sources. Per the policy on Biased_or_opinionated_sources:

"Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Dimadick (talk) 09:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Censorship[edit]

With Wikipedia's track record or admins blocking people based on politics or the religion of editors, there should be a section on this.69.193.29.67 (talk) 23:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of user accounts based on controversial content[edit]

The whole second paragraph of this section just reads as opinion and doesn't actually contribute much about the practice of banning users or "deplatforming". It was definitely giving undue weight to Glenn Reynolds's opinion by quoting him ad verbatim without also quoting any counter-points to his arguments. Not to mention that the last quote I removed in the edit I made was just not true. I'm not convinced this paragraph is actually needed, but it at least needs more of a re-work to either remove the bias or provide other opinions for balance.

CupOfTea696 (talk) 08:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment[edit]

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Toronto supported by WikiProject Wikipedia and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is meant by internet censorship?[edit]

Does it mean by putting some restrictions etc. 2400:ADC5:439:2900:3803:DA5B:74B4:3141 (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the article and if anything is unclear, ask for clarification. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No internet censorship at USA?[edit]

This is just going in circles and is not productive whatsoever. Closing so people don't continue to waste their time on this timesink. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 12:12, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Why does the color of USA in the article map suggest that there's little censorship in USA? What about twitter doing favors for both parties and censoring/shadowbanning users? What about snowden and the massive surveilance that he whistleblow?

I guess one can cherry pick the sources when coloring the map and so have the usa look like an innocent actor and also be ok with wikipedia rules. 79.167.189.17 (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not censoring. The gov't (both when under Trump and Biden) only requested removals, it was still up to Twitter to decide to take that. Censoring requires the gov't to be strictly the ones to remove the content. Masem (t) 01:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

by what definition censoring must be strictly carried by the govt? quoting wikipedia's article on censorship:

Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information. This may be done on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient". Censorship can be conducted by governments, private institutions and other controlling bodies. 79.167.189.17 (talk) 11:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a big difference between "we choose not to have this material in our school library" (eg Maus#Reception and legacy) and "this book is not allowed to be sold or lent anywhere in the state, under pain of imprisonment" (e.g., Samizdat). The former is not censorship, the latter is. The US has a constitutional right to freedom of expression: you have the right to say or print what you like but I have the right not to listen to or read what you say. You appear to have misunderstood the word "suppression" --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Someone posts something critical about a politician, that politician then asks twitter to remove that post, and twitter happily complies, isn't that censorship? your right to choose what to read, and in fact not read that said post, doesn't change the fact that twitter on behalf of the state censored that post. 79.167.189.17 (talk) 13:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing compeled under legal threat for Twitter to take action, but instead use their moderation platform to consider the request. No censorship.

Whats happening in Florida, on the other hand, with libraries being forced to remove book due to a new law, absolutely borders on censorshio. Masem (t) 14:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To the end user, the result is the same. The end user can't access information because these information were censored. Does it matter if it was the state or the capital that censored the information? maybe it matters to lawyers but to the end user it is the same. 79.167.189.17 (talk) 14:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter has a free speech right as well - the right to decide what is and is not posted on their website, just like your local newspaper isn't required to print every letter someone sends them. You only have unrestricted free speech if you own the printing press / website. MrOllie (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This argument seems to just be going in circles. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:28, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Owning the printing press? So, free speech is tied to capital access? If I'm rich enough, I can have free speech, but if not, no free speech for me? 79.167.189.17 (talk) 14:37, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the US you are free to say what you want.within free speech, but no one is required to provide you the platform for conveying that message. If it were censorship, you would be unable to freely speak in the first place with fear of retribution. Masem (t) 14:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you're not free to say what you want, there are libel laws. The fact they aren't required to provide you the platform doesn't make it less of a censorship when they delete your posts or shadowban you because some politician (not some judge) asked them to do so. 79.167.189.17 (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok this is starting to go off-topic to just discussing free speech rather than "No internet censorship at USA". IF this continues I"m going to close this conversation as it's going nowhere. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, as I understand it, USA has privatized censorship and thus no longer call it that. I think you should update the entry on censorship to reflect that. 79.167.189.17 (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Once reliable sources reflect that of course. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:22, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you can always cherry pick reliable sources to fit your pre-existing narrative and color the map in whatever way you wish. 79.167.189.17 (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vandalism reverted[edit]

I have reverted the vandalism done by User:Darky_Soulsy_X. AmberWing1352 (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]