4 ms·

OH these fresh young naive minds, who think censorship never happens. Censorship happens ALL THE TIME. The Radio, TV, and Film industries in the USA - they have

OH these fresh young naive minds, who think censorship never happens. Censorship happens ALL THE TIME. The Radio, TV, and Film industries in the USA - they have all been censored, from the very beginning.[1] So it was self-censorship at the behest of the government. What's the difference? Censorship is all around us. Americans self-censor tits and genitals, Europeans self-censor violence. Censorship is everywhere. I think this whole discussion is extremely naive. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Master-Switch-Rise-Information-Empires/dp/0307390993 https://www.amazon.com/Master-Switch-Rise-Information-Empire...

kome 8y ago
Can we agree on the fact that censorship in a democracy is different from censorship in an autocracy?
alexandercrohde 8y ago
I find the way you phrase this super-alienating. If anything, it pushes me away from your cause. 1. Comes across as ad-hominem 2. Comes across as emotional/pedantic 3. For example, yes "pornography" is censored on broadcast TV, but many other things aren't. There are obviously degrees of censorship. 4. If your goal is to convince people that things are more censored than they realize you might want to cite some real world examples of political censorship that happened in America that support that point. 5. Your whole comment is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Regardless of whether censorship is common or uncommon in the US, it's still meaningful to take a stance against creating a politically-censored search in China.
- scarcely 8y ago
  I don't think the user you are responding intends his comment to be putting forward some watertight argument. It sounds light-hearted to me. It's puzzling to me that you'd pick on this one particular comment to produce a detailed, five-point rebuttal in a thread like this one where there are so many other more important targets to go after.
  - alexandercrohde 8y ago
    I think I understand where you're coming from. Here's my motivation - I think there are actually some pretty scary problems out there. However, I think it is possible to talk about an important issue in a way so emotional that it actually backfires and creates a negative impression of those who care about an issue. For example, Alex Jones is right to lament the pesticide atrazine that changes frogs sexes [1], but by virtue of being Alex Jones actually may look a wider swath of environmentally-conscious look somewhat unreliable by association. Another example is Al Gore: even though he had an important message on climate change his manner was so distasteful that it's hard to argue he helped the cause. When I see someone who agrees with my beliefs but comes across as hysterical I try to metaphorically "hold a mirror up" so they can learn to phrase their message in a way that won't drive people away. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrazine#Amphibians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrazine#Amphibians
    - scarcely 8y ago
      Ah! My bad for not realizing that. I would only add that those who give so much weight to tone/delivery heuristics are also to blame. But I see your point, I feel similarly frustrated sometimes and I can definitely imagine myself acting the same way you did.
PavlovsCat 8y ago
> I think this whole discussion is extremely naive. As in, every single comment in it states that censorship wouldn't exist if Google didn't cooperate with China on this? Or that there is just "censorhip" or "no censorship", without any further qualification or context? That's clearly not the case, so what is this even in response to?

kome 8y ago

Can we agree on the fact that censorship in a democracy is different from censorship in an autocracy?

alexandercrohde 8y ago

I find the way you phrase this super-alienating. If anything, it pushes me away from your cause. 1. Comes across as ad-hominem 2. Comes across as emotional/pedantic 3. For example, yes "pornography" is censored on broadcast TV, but many other things aren't. There are obviously degrees of censorship. 4. If your goal is to convince people that things are more censored than they realize you might want to cite some real world examples of political censorship that happened in America that support that point. 5. Your whole comment is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Regardless of whether censorship is common or uncommon in the US, it's still meaningful to take a stance against creating a politically-censored search in China.

scarcely 8y ago
I don't think the user you are responding intends his comment to be putting forward some watertight argument. It sounds light-hearted to me. It's puzzling to me that you'd pick on this one particular comment to produce a detailed, five-point rebuttal in a thread like this one where there are so many other more important targets to go after.
- alexandercrohde 8y ago
  I think I understand where you're coming from. Here's my motivation - I think there are actually some pretty scary problems out there. However, I think it is possible to talk about an important issue in a way so emotional that it actually backfires and creates a negative impression of those who care about an issue. For example, Alex Jones is right to lament the pesticide atrazine that changes frogs sexes [1], but by virtue of being Alex Jones actually may look a wider swath of environmentally-conscious look somewhat unreliable by association. Another example is Al Gore: even though he had an important message on climate change his manner was so distasteful that it's hard to argue he helped the cause. When I see someone who agrees with my beliefs but comes across as hysterical I try to metaphorically "hold a mirror up" so they can learn to phrase their message in a way that won't drive people away. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrazine#Amphibians https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrazine#Amphibians
  - scarcely 8y ago
    Ah! My bad for not realizing that. I would only add that those who give so much weight to tone/delivery heuristics are also to blame. But I see your point, I feel similarly frustrated sometimes and I can definitely imagine myself acting the same way you did.

PavlovsCat 8y ago

> I think this whole discussion is extremely naive. As in, every single comment in it states that censorship wouldn't exist if Google didn't cooperate with China on this? Or that there is just "censorhip" or "no censorship", without any further qualification or context? That's clearly not the case, so what is this even in response to?