4 ms·

I had a long and detailed argument about this, with someone who I would consider mostly rational. They just can't see the problem with internet censorship, bec

by brc 17y ago

I had a long and detailed argument about this, with someone who I would consider mostly rational. They just can't see the problem with internet censorship, because TV, Movies, Newspapers and Games are all censored, and theer is some deplorable sites on the internet I think don't have any benefit to anyone. Free speech always involves allowing people to say things you don't like or agree with, but ultimately the good outweighs the bad. My line is (and will always be) that hidden censorship is the thin edge of the wedge for greater control, and that a faulty technology easily circumvented is pointless. I also have a large problem with any government of any kind telling me how my family should spend it's time, when there is no externality to the activity. But the argument I had really opened my eyes to how the general public (and thus politicians) see this issue. And because of this, I think the filter is coming whether we like it or not. Because tech-literate educated people make up a fraction of the voting public, I fear this is going to happen. Oh, and I'm not willing to black out my site. I'd hate to think what it would do to my conversion rate.

zmimon 17y ago
I think arguing against all censorship is doomed because people will always come up with examples that are very hard to argue with. For example, "what if someone puts detailed plans to make a nuclear bomb on the internet"? Would you really argue nothing should be done to prevent that? What is really the problem here is the method. We can usually all agree that censorship must be an exception, not the rule. In fact, we can usually agree that in a democracy we have a set of important principles without which the pillars that support the democracy itself and the freedom of people within it will break down: a) We try as hard not to censor as we can. b) We try everything except censorship before we try censorship c) Even then, we censor only when such censorship has a provable chance of preventing the serious harm that we have identified must be prevented Filtering the internet fails all of these.

by brc 17y ago

zmimon 17y ago

I think arguing against all censorship is doomed because people will always come up with examples that are very hard to argue with. For example, "what if someone puts detailed plans to make a nuclear bomb on the internet"? Would you really argue nothing should be done to prevent that? What is really the problem here is the method. We can usually all agree that censorship must be an exception, not the rule. In fact, we can usually agree that in a democracy we have a set of important principles without which the pillars that support the democracy itself and the freedom of people within it will break down: a) We try as hard not to censor as we can. b) We try everything except censorship before we try censorship c) Even then, we censor only when such censorship has a provable chance of preventing the serious harm that we have identified must be prevented Filtering the internet fails all of these.