4 ms·

> They're well within their rights to decline your business. They are. Should we condone it? > "Maybe they're sending it to terrorists or drug lords, maybe th

• vmateixeira 10y ago
  Isn't this similar to the idea of banning web browsers, as they render HTML which, as we all know, can be used to write text (<span>plaintext!</span>) inciting terrorism? And it sometimes is. Are you using a browser right now? Things we deem "evil" are planned using technology. Should we ban technology? Nicely answered. This 'safety' insanity is getting way out of control.
• lmm 10y ago
  > Isn't this similar to the idea of banning web browsers, as they render HTML which, as we all know, can be used to write text (<span>plaintext!</span>) inciting terrorism? And it sometimes is. Are you using a browser right now? Search engines and hosting services already monitor for illegal content. Reasonable people can disagree over whether requiring a filesharing service to monitor for illegal content is excessively onerous, but the slippery-slope fallacy does noone any favours. You can make any policy sound absurd by taking it to a far enough extreme. Often we do need to weigh up costs and benefits and take a policy line somewhere in the middle.
  • gambiting 10y ago
    I feel like "search engines" means only Google in this case. IF you want to look for porn or torrents or anything that does not show up on google just use Bing, it feels like the restrictions don't apply to MS at all because they are not the biggest search engine around.
  • woodman 10y ago
    > slippery-slope fallacy ... sound absurd by taking it to a far enough extreme. Assuming that you actually value logic, given your choice of words, how do you not see that the magnitude of the absurdity is directly related a faulty premise - a fallacy? Live and let live * [1..1000] = nice .. nice Kill at random * [1..1000] = bad .. horrific So no, not every policy can be made to sound absurd.
    • lmm 10y ago
      "Live and let live" can absolutely be made to sound absurd by taking it to the extreme. Does the amount of taking-far-enough needed to make something sound absurd vary? Sure. But the post I replied to was doing a whole lot of taking-far-enough.
      • woodman 10y ago
        > ...needed to make something sound absurd vary? Sure. That is your point, not mine. I'm saying that you're focusing on the wrong part of the equation. Imagine a machine with two variables that you have influence over, calibration error and runtime. You are suggesting short runtimes in order to minimize the impact of calibration error, I'm suggesting recalibration. I'd love to hear an extreme for "Live and let live", but I'm guessing that whatever scenario you can imagine is based on a faulty premise like "How can we wreak revenge without a death penalty?!".
        • lmm 10y ago
          > That is your point, not mine. I'm saying that you're focusing on the wrong part of the equation. Imagine a machine with two variables that you have influence over, calibration error and runtime. You are suggesting short runtimes in order to minimize the impact of calibration error, I'm suggesting recalibration. Please stop with the extended metaphors and just say what you're trying to say directly. > I'd love to hear an extreme for "Live and let live", but I'm guessing that whatever scenario you can imagine is based on a faulty premise like "How can we wreak revenge without a death penalty?!". Whatever. Are you interested in a constructive discussion or not? There are plenty of silly extremes for "live and let live" - harming the environment in ways that don't kill anyone? Harming themselves in all the various ways that can happen? Harming their children?
• ams6110 10y ago
  Should we condone it That's a business decision like any other. There are other ways to accept payments if you don't like the terms under which they sell their service.