4 ms·

I hate 4chan so much, its a diseased cesspool of morons. However, I hate the idea blocking them. Its such a slippery slope from censorship of bad websites to mo

by rc_kas 8y ago

I hate 4chan so much, its a diseased cesspool of morons. However, I hate the idea blocking them. Its such a slippery slope from censorship of bad websites to moving to censorship of good websites that the government does not like. Edit: Also, facebook pro-actively took down the video as soon as they became aware.

krapp 8y ago
>Its such a slippery slope from censorship of bad websites to moving to censorship of good websites that the government does not like. Is it really, though, or do people just like the slippery slope fallacy a bit too much? Does everyone really think that if a government bans 4chan, no one and nothing is going to stop them from banning everything else because there's precedent now and nothing can be done? That's not how societies or governments tend to work.
- AckSyn 8y ago
  You must not work for government, because once they have a foothold into socially and even legally dubious methods/ideas, they'll continue to encroach on rights and abilities like the zerg creep. Don't allow it to happen in the first place and it won't happen. History is rife with examples.
- rc_kas 8y ago
  If Trump had the power to censor bad websites, think about how much effort he would currently be putting into censoring any website that talked about him badly. We should be glad he has no such power.
  - erentz 8y ago
    Needs to be noted, because a lot of people are very confused about this as you seem to be: The government cannot direct the rating and censoring of material in NZ. It’s an independent commission operating under the strict legislation that establishes it and checked by the judicial system. If NZ had a Trump he could not order anything to be censored. That’s not how it works. Like a lot of parliamentary systems, NZ agencies and commissions operate independently under the laws that establish them. In the US it’s very different, each new President comes in an appoints a huge number of positions that direct these agencies and those positions have tremendous political influence of them. Hence you can have a new EPA director appointed by someone like Trump who comes in expressly to cut down the EPA and who answers to Trump for his marching orders. This may be where some of this confusion comes from.
- CompanionCuuube 8y ago
  > Does everyone really think that if a government bans 4chan, no one and nothing is going to stop them from banning everything else because there's precedent now and nothing can be done? Is it really, though, or do people just like the strawman fallacy a bit too much?
  - krapp 8y ago
    >or do people just like the strawman fallacy a bit too much? Well, strawmen are often involved in the invocation of slippery slope arguments, so yes, probably.
    - CompanionCuuube 8y ago
      Whoosh. That post was about your strawman. As in the one that was quoted.
      - krapp 8y ago
        No... I know you thought you were being clever, you just didn't hit the mark. E for effort, though. I didn't invoke any strawman. A slippery slope argument is, by definition, precisely as I described - that a particular degenerative state (be it social, or political) will inevitably be reached starting from some innocent and minor consequence, and that this trend cannot be reversed or corrected for. You know, like falling down a slope that's slippery.
        CompanionCuuube 8y ago
        > I didn't invoke any strawman. Except in the degenerative state that you talked about. No reasonable person has said that the censoring of this one case would lead to censorship of everything, but that's exactly what you decided on for the degenerative state. > no one and nothing is going to stop them from banning everything else Try to backpedal harder.
- Nadya 8y ago
  The "it's a slippery slope fallacy to assume that censorship of bad things will lead to censoring good things" would be a more compelling argument if we didn't have thousands of years of human history proving that it happens again and again. "Oh - don't worry, this time in human history it won't be a slippery slope!" is not a very compelling argument when we have historical precedent of the opposite being true time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again.
  - krapp 8y ago
    >when we have historical precedent of the opposite being true time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again. Do we? Because we appear to be in one of several threads about how the ease with which certain content spreads around the internet makes attempts at censorship futile, and I can legally buy a copy of Mein Kampf and the Turner Diaries and read the Unabomber's manifesto and all kinds of stuff generally agreed upon to be "bad things," and I don't see the vast amount of "good things" being censored everywhere as a result of the slippery slope of censorship. Censorship is applied in different degrees in different places, yes, China is not the US is not Europe, but that doesn't signal the universal certainty that "time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again" seems to imply. Maybe the slippery slope is just, like, a tiny slope? Maybe it's a slope but it's not as slippery as you think? Maybe there's more than one slope? Or is it just a matter of time until the boot crushes all of our heads, or something?
    - Nadya 8y ago
      >I don't see the vast amount of "good things" being censored everywhere as a result of the slippery slope of censorship. I would like to ask that you take a moment to reflect on this statement ... ... ... Okay now moving on. Who's to say they need to censor "good things"? They only need to censor things that you don't agree with censoring. I won't pretend to know your political standings but I can guarantee you that your opinion and the governments opinion on what should be censored will eventually reach a disagreement. People tend to give governments powers during a time of need or when they are frightened often in exchange for "increased safety". A perceived increase of safety that may - or may not - result in more safety but with 100% certainty results in giving up certain rights or freedoms. For the easiest example of exchanging things for a perceived increase in safety. What do you think of the TSA? Is the intrusiveness and racism in the 'random selections' actually resulting in increased safety and security? Or is it mostly security theater? It tramples over peoples' privacy and sometimes violates their rights for a perceived increase of safety but the failure rate is so high that it is meaningless. The government isn't going to get rid of that power (the TSA) so easily. After all, we gave it to them and they'll gladly keep up the security theater in exchange. The U.S signed away large portions of our privacy and removed many checks & balances placed on the government after the 9/11 attacks. The USA-PATRIOT Act was forced through in a time of need where people were frightened in exchange for safety and security. By the time you realize you've given the government too much power it's far too late to take any of it back. History is full of examples and history may not repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme.
- Grue3 8y ago
  >Does everyone really think that if a government bans 4chan, no one and nothing is going to stop them from banning everything else because there's precedent now and nothing can be done? That's not how societies or governments tend to work. Russian here. It's exactly how ours works.

by rc_kas 8y ago

krapp 8y ago

>Its such a slippery slope from censorship of bad websites to moving to censorship of good websites that the government does not like. Is it really, though, or do people just like the slippery slope fallacy a bit too much? Does everyone really think that if a government bans 4chan, no one and nothing is going to stop them from banning everything else because there's precedent now and nothing can be done? That's not how societies or governments tend to work.

AckSyn 8y ago
You must not work for government, because once they have a foothold into socially and even legally dubious methods/ideas, they'll continue to encroach on rights and abilities like the zerg creep. Don't allow it to happen in the first place and it won't happen. History is rife with examples.
rc_kas 8y ago
If Trump had the power to censor bad websites, think about how much effort he would currently be putting into censoring any website that talked about him badly. We should be glad he has no such power.
- erentz 8y ago
  Needs to be noted, because a lot of people are very confused about this as you seem to be: The government cannot direct the rating and censoring of material in NZ. It’s an independent commission operating under the strict legislation that establishes it and checked by the judicial system. If NZ had a Trump he could not order anything to be censored. That’s not how it works. Like a lot of parliamentary systems, NZ agencies and commissions operate independently under the laws that establish them. In the US it’s very different, each new President comes in an appoints a huge number of positions that direct these agencies and those positions have tremendous political influence of them. Hence you can have a new EPA director appointed by someone like Trump who comes in expressly to cut down the EPA and who answers to Trump for his marching orders. This may be where some of this confusion comes from.
CompanionCuuube 8y ago
> Does everyone really think that if a government bans 4chan, no one and nothing is going to stop them from banning everything else because there's precedent now and nothing can be done? Is it really, though, or do people just like the strawman fallacy a bit too much?
- krapp 8y ago
  >or do people just like the strawman fallacy a bit too much? Well, strawmen are often involved in the invocation of slippery slope arguments, so yes, probably.
  - CompanionCuuube 8y ago
    Whoosh. That post was about your strawman. As in the one that was quoted.
    - krapp 8y ago
      No... I know you thought you were being clever, you just didn't hit the mark. E for effort, though. I didn't invoke any strawman. A slippery slope argument is, by definition, precisely as I described - that a particular degenerative state (be it social, or political) will inevitably be reached starting from some innocent and minor consequence, and that this trend cannot be reversed or corrected for. You know, like falling down a slope that's slippery.
      - CompanionCuuube 8y ago
        > I didn't invoke any strawman. Except in the degenerative state that you talked about. No reasonable person has said that the censoring of this one case would lead to censorship of everything, but that's exactly what you decided on for the degenerative state. > no one and nothing is going to stop them from banning everything else Try to backpedal harder.
Nadya 8y ago
The "it's a slippery slope fallacy to assume that censorship of bad things will lead to censoring good things" would be a more compelling argument if we didn't have thousands of years of human history proving that it happens again and again. "Oh - don't worry, this time in human history it won't be a slippery slope!" is not a very compelling argument when we have historical precedent of the opposite being true time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again.
- krapp 8y ago
  >when we have historical precedent of the opposite being true time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again. Do we? Because we appear to be in one of several threads about how the ease with which certain content spreads around the internet makes attempts at censorship futile, and I can legally buy a copy of Mein Kampf and the Turner Diaries and read the Unabomber's manifesto and all kinds of stuff generally agreed upon to be "bad things," and I don't see the vast amount of "good things" being censored everywhere as a result of the slippery slope of censorship. Censorship is applied in different degrees in different places, yes, China is not the US is not Europe, but that doesn't signal the universal certainty that "time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time and time again" seems to imply. Maybe the slippery slope is just, like, a tiny slope? Maybe it's a slope but it's not as slippery as you think? Maybe there's more than one slope? Or is it just a matter of time until the boot crushes all of our heads, or something?
  - Nadya 8y ago
    >I don't see the vast amount of "good things" being censored everywhere as a result of the slippery slope of censorship. I would like to ask that you take a moment to reflect on this statement ... ... ... Okay now moving on. Who's to say they need to censor "good things"? They only need to censor things that you don't agree with censoring. I won't pretend to know your political standings but I can guarantee you that your opinion and the governments opinion on what should be censored will eventually reach a disagreement. People tend to give governments powers during a time of need or when they are frightened often in exchange for "increased safety". A perceived increase of safety that may - or may not - result in more safety but with 100% certainty results in giving up certain rights or freedoms. For the easiest example of exchanging things for a perceived increase in safety. What do you think of the TSA? Is the intrusiveness and racism in the 'random selections' actually resulting in increased safety and security? Or is it mostly security theater? It tramples over peoples' privacy and sometimes violates their rights for a perceived increase of safety but the failure rate is so high that it is meaningless. The government isn't going to get rid of that power (the TSA) so easily. After all, we gave it to them and they'll gladly keep up the security theater in exchange. The U.S signed away large portions of our privacy and removed many checks & balances placed on the government after the 9/11 attacks. The USA-PATRIOT Act was forced through in a time of need where people were frightened in exchange for safety and security. By the time you realize you've given the government too much power it's far too late to take any of it back. History is full of examples and history may not repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme.
Grue3 8y ago
>Does everyone really think that if a government bans 4chan, no one and nothing is going to stop them from banning everything else because there's precedent now and nothing can be done? That's not how societies or governments tend to work. Russian here. It's exactly how ours works.