3 ms·

If I make a website and put in a comment section, I'm well within my rights to curate it and prune content I don't subjectively find positive. If the governmen

by mfoy_ 9y ago

If I make a website and put in a comment section, I'm well within my rights to curate it and prune content I don't subjectively find positive. If the government comes in and tells me to delete comments because they don't like them, that's a WHOLE other ball game.

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
When the government blames you for "spreading terrorism" without explicitly telling you what to delete, what happens then? How about when they tell you to play ball or they're cancelling their contracts with you, which will ultimately destroy your company? (Similarly, when they insinuate that you'll receive contracts if you're compliant -- and your rival might if they're compliant instead.) It's not (and has never been) do whatever you want with your company, once you reach a certain size. In fact, I don't think most of us actually want that. (Also, arguably, your comment section is a public accommodation and you're legally requires not to discriminate on certain bases.) I'm not implying that the US is the same as China in this regard -- I'm pointing out that they US does regulate content in an authoritarian way, they simply vest that authority in private lobbying groups and exercise it via back-channel deals. I find that worse than the open authoritarianism with an obvious source of blame, even if it's a "milder" authoritarianism in terms of effects.
wu-ikkyu 9y ago
If you were to put Dr. King's I Have a Dream speech on your website, the government can force you to take it down under copyright law. Both the US and China censor free speech, they just do it differently.
- wbl 9y ago
  Dr. Kings descendents are free to publish it as much as they want. I can say Donald Trump is an asshole without a shred of honesty or character and not risk arrest.
  - wu-ikkyu 9y ago
    It remains that in a country which brags of its freedom of speech you could be arrested for replaying the words of a civil rights activist who was assasinated 50 years ago. "When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered."

by mfoy_ 9y ago

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago

When the government blames you for "spreading terrorism" without explicitly telling you what to delete, what happens then? How about when they tell you to play ball or they're cancelling their contracts with you, which will ultimately destroy your company? (Similarly, when they insinuate that you'll receive contracts if you're compliant -- and your rival might if they're compliant instead.) It's not (and has never been) do whatever you want with your company, once you reach a certain size. In fact, I don't think most of us actually want that. (Also, arguably, your comment section is a public accommodation and you're legally requires not to discriminate on certain bases.) I'm not implying that the US is the same as China in this regard -- I'm pointing out that they US does regulate content in an authoritarian way, they simply vest that authority in private lobbying groups and exercise it via back-channel deals. I find that worse than the open authoritarianism with an obvious source of blame, even if it's a "milder" authoritarianism in terms of effects.

wu-ikkyu 9y ago

If you were to put Dr. King's I Have a Dream speech on your website, the government can force you to take it down under copyright law. Both the US and China censor free speech, they just do it differently.

wbl 9y ago
Dr. Kings descendents are free to publish it as much as they want. I can say Donald Trump is an asshole without a shred of honesty or character and not risk arrest.
- wu-ikkyu 9y ago
  It remains that in a country which brags of its freedom of speech you could be arrested for replaying the words of a civil rights activist who was assasinated 50 years ago. "When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered."