If information that would typically be widespread was prevented from becoming widespread, then censorship has taken place and succeeded.
If a newsworthy event has taken place but is not reported on mainstream media because of government intervention, that is censorship.
The main purpose of censorship is not to completely stop all access to some information, it is to prevent that information from reaching a majority of its target audience.
This is what happened here. You're shrugging it off with 'ehhh but you can still find the information if you know to look for it in the first place, where most people would not look'. This apologist attitude is why you're being downvoted. You are using the Chinese government 'approved' definition of censorship with is contradictory to the definition outside of china.
He/She linked articles from sina.com and hexun, they are arguably the most popular online news outlets in China. Xinhua also have numerous news articles on the increasing defaults [1][2][3] -
If it's just because of different definitions of censorship, I would gladly take the downvotes. After all, people disagree on definitions and HN allows downvotes for disagreeing.
In fact I am happy that we found the root cause of our disagreement.
Edit: To be more clear, I would define censorship as denying legal means to access a piece of information.
"Censorship is the suppression of speech, public communication, or other information, on the basis that such material is considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or "inconvenient" as determined by a government or private institution"
The definition is pretty clear, and TFA pretty clearly meets that definition. You're not being downvoted simply because people disagree with your point of view, you're being downvoted because you're using alternative party-approved language which subverts the discussion.
To put it really bluntly, your comments match the heuristic of what people would consider propaganda trolling.
> To put it really bluntly, your comments match the heuristic of what people would consider propaganda trolling.
I got downvoted to hell for pointing out that the article doesn't provide the total size of the bond market when talking about those $8 bln defaults. I provided a link to a recent bloomberg article showing the total size is $11 trillion.
Surely those downvotes are a good show of freedom of speech! Shame on you.
If a newsworthy event has taken place but is not reported on mainstream media because of government intervention, that is censorship.
The main purpose of censorship is not to completely stop all access to some information, it is to prevent that information from reaching a majority of its target audience.
This is what happened here. You're shrugging it off with 'ehhh but you can still find the information if you know to look for it in the first place, where most people would not look'. This apologist attitude is why you're being downvoted. You are using the Chinese government 'approved' definition of censorship with is contradictory to the definition outside of china.