No, this is just censorship. The government showed up and told her to stop saying stuff, so she did. The problem is that the word has been diluted in contemporary usage. Almost everything that people call "censorship" in the discourse mostly amounts to "People disagree with me and I don't liek that", or occasionally "I got banned on <service A> so I'm yelling about it on <service B>".
"I got my wings clipped and they weren't gentle about it"
"I can leave but Kaidi can't"
"In fact, one of the latest turns is the Beijing LGBT Center's closure by the Chinese government in May of this year. "
And many other useful bits of information in the article.
Censorship is when you send a message from jail and someone elides stuff they don't want you to talk about. It doesn't involve goons visiting you, travel restrictions and wholesale restrictions on sizeable chunks of the population in terms of education or association.
Rethink your take. Censorship is when the government prevents you from saying or publishing what you want. The government's ability to do that ultimately stems from the threat of force/violence.
China's ways of doing this might seem crude to somebody in the US or EU, but boil down to the same thing.
If you continue to disobey either of those government's orders to stop doing something, they will send men with guns to pick you up and lock you in a cage, literally preventing you from traveling anywhere.
That's why censorship is a terrible thing in a purportedly free society, and discussions like this are why mis-application of the word "censorship" to mean things like "waaaah walmart.com refused to broadcast my tweet about how trans people should be beaten up" is also bad.
Agreed that private entities not posting your tweets is not censorship.
But I will stick to my guns that there is much more at stake for people in China that don't behave in the way the government wants them to than just being censored. 'to stop doing something' is doing the heavy lifting in your comment and what the 'something' is can be limited to media expressions and then I would agree it is censorship. But this goes much further than that: it is not just what you write. It is also how you behave, and about what your ancestry is, which activities you are allowed to engage in (and which activities you have to engage in).
Censorship is just about expression. This is full-on coercion, anti-LGBT policy and racism. To make it explicit.
I said 'it goes beyond censorship', that means that censorship is a part of it but that it goes well beyond that point.
Here is the dictionary definition: "the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."
If we follow your logic then killing someone or jailing or intimidating them is just censorship. But the bar for what is censorship is much lower than that. So if the bar for censorship is met by just targeting the media (for instance: youtube, to tell them to pull the account and not to let her back in) then that would be censorship and it wouldn't require threats of harm or restrictions on movement. That's active and possibly violent intimidation. Xi's government gets a free pass from the West because (1) we like the goodies and (2) he's not as bad as some of his predecessors. But meanwhile he's a thug and his government is acting in very thuggish ways to achieve their goals and the casualness with which censorship escalates into other forms of abuse is telling. And that's why we have different names for those other abuses. Those abuses are not there in the service of censorship, censorship is just one of the elements from a palette of abuses that a state can visit on a person.
More telling is how apparently a fragment of the HN audience insists they see nothing more than the control of information. Trust me on this: if your internet connection is severed and/or your online writings are officially erased that's bad enough, having goons come to your house, threaten you and threaten your significant other that's another level altogether.
Censorship doesn't require guns, does not require goons and in general doesn't have a prerequisite of violence. But threats of harm, or being sent to a 'reeducation camp' (I hate that term) especially in a country where people tend to just disappear aim to influence not just your writings and your media expression but your general behavior and serve to cow an individual completely, apparently successful. So censorship is only a sub-goal, and a minor one at that. This is all about behavior and coercion, hence the travel restrictions and targeting of groups of individuals.
Censorship is not solely its most extreme form. Getting banned from your favorite baseball forum because you keep talking about hockey does in fact count, even if it's relatively minor and most people would even agree with it.
> Getting banned from your favorite baseball forum because you keep talking about hockey does in fact count, even if it's relatively minor and most people would even agree with it.
Fine. But then what word do you use for repressive coercion of speech by governments? I'm no linguistic purist. I get that words change their meanings over time.
What I was complaining about were people (1) using the word to imply terrible behavior on the part of some imagined enemy while (2) citing irrelevant nonsense evidence, as in your example. That's not a semantic argument, that's just lying.
