3 ms·

> There is bit of a weird standard when it comes to censoring because of the nature of content, audience, culture and location. There is no perfect solution to

> There is bit of a weird standard when it comes to censoring because of the nature of content, audience, culture and location. There is no perfect solution to this problem. That's why the general internet ideal was no censorship until fairly recently. Pretty much the "hacker/tech/EFF" was the standard "you have the right to be offended". > Example - If anyone shares gun videos on social network from a place where carrying guns is a normal practice it may not get censored that quickly or may not even get reported. What we used to say on the internet was that if you don't like it, then don't consume it. If you don't like porn, guns, marijuana, etc, you don't have to visit the sites or click the video. But there is a small vocal contingent who wants to decide what everyone wants to consume. > While on other end someone who maybe coming from an entirely different place or culture may find this offensive or a safety issue. It's why one should take a principled stance. As a liberal, it's what we learned in civics/philosophy 101 class. I'm genuinely surprised that the media, elites and their liberal allies have been pushing so hard for censorship. It feels like a betrayal of the core principles of the US in particular and the hopes we had for the internet in general.

userbinator 8y ago
That's why the general internet ideal was no censorship until fairly recently. Pretty much the "hacker/tech/EFF" was the standard "you have the right to be offended". Alternatively, "offense is in the mind of the beholder." The other notable quote is "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
- UncleMeat 8y ago
  But weirdly advocates only seem to come out of the woodwork to defend speech when it isn't supporting minority groups.
throwawayjava 8y ago
> That's why the general internet ideal was no censorship until fairly recently. I disagree. To point out the obvious, the Santa Clara Principles are being published now. Not 20 years ago. Going all the way back to BBSs, it was common for there to exist many forums with varying levels of moderator involvement. I never, ever saw the EFF complain about BBSs or web forums that moderated user content. Can you provide one example of EFF complaining about censorship on a private discussion website from the pre-Google/Facebook era? They were much more focused on the freedom to host one's own forum/BBS, and preventing the government from compelling a BBS/forum to go offline. They never took explicit issue with a forum owner's choice to censor. So, actually, I think it's the other way around. Network effects in the eternal September have caused EFF et al. to adopt a new stance on censorship in very large communities. Actually, this is kind of obvious; otherwise, why weren't the Santa Clara Principles published 20 years ago and applied to BBS/forums/newgroups? > It feels like a betrayal of the core principles of the US in particular and the hopes we had for the internet in general. Again, I disagree. It was the eternal September that killed many hopes for the internet in general. Many were hopelessly optimistic about what it would mean to have "everyone" online. Everything else is just the natural progression from that initial disappointment.

userbinator 8y ago

That's why the general internet ideal was no censorship until fairly recently. Pretty much the "hacker/tech/EFF" was the standard "you have the right to be offended". Alternatively, "offense is in the mind of the beholder." The other notable quote is "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

UncleMeat 8y ago
But weirdly advocates only seem to come out of the woodwork to defend speech when it isn't supporting minority groups.

throwawayjava 8y ago

> That's why the general internet ideal was no censorship until fairly recently. I disagree. To point out the obvious, the Santa Clara Principles are being published now. Not 20 years ago. Going all the way back to BBSs, it was common for there to exist many forums with varying levels of moderator involvement. I never, ever saw the EFF complain about BBSs or web forums that moderated user content. Can you provide one example of EFF complaining about censorship on a private discussion website from the pre-Google/Facebook era? They were much more focused on the freedom to host one's own forum/BBS, and preventing the government from compelling a BBS/forum to go offline. They never took explicit issue with a forum owner's choice to censor. So, actually, I think it's the other way around. Network effects in the eternal September have caused EFF et al. to adopt a new stance on censorship in very large communities. Actually, this is kind of obvious; otherwise, why weren't the Santa Clara Principles published 20 years ago and applied to BBS/forums/newgroups? > It feels like a betrayal of the core principles of the US in particular and the hopes we had for the internet in general. Again, I disagree. It was the eternal September that killed many hopes for the internet in general. Many were hopelessly optimistic about what it would mean to have "everyone" online. Everything else is just the natural progression from that initial disappointment.