5 ms·
Some people just want to be able to say what is legally allowed. That ability is attacked again and again. You don't have to want that freedom yourself, but imp
by s9w 7y ago
Some people just want to be able to say what is legally allowed. That ability is attacked again and again. You don't have to want that freedom yourself, but imposing that restriction on others can be criticized.
- avip 7y agoDoes this extension give any party the power to unpublish not-legally-allowed content?
- s9w 7y agoI have no idea. But I would assume they would comply with the law in order to not get sued?
- catacombs 7y agoOne person made the extension. It wouldn't take much for a company to threaten a lawsuit to take the extension out of operation.
- comntr 7y agoYup. That's why I don't post my SSN everywhere. A single data server with all the comments without any moderation won't survive. But a group of data servers with different rules and many entry points via extensions or websites, can survive.
- darkarmani 7y ago> give any party the power to unpublish not-legally-allowed content Like the party that published it?
- comntr 7y agoYep, it's possible in theory. Comments are signed with ed25519 and the author can sign a request to delete the comment.
- marcinzm 7y ago>Some people just want to be able to say what is legally allowed. Not all speech is legally allowed, is this extensions going to deal with copyright violations, threats, libel, etc. Or even someone posting the name of a person arrested on a news story when the laws disallow that information being public.
- s9w 7y agoWell they have to, as it is law. I specifically wrote about legal speech. Extensions like this (or much more popular: dissenter) allows people to exercise that right on sites that limit their free speech.
- kristiandupont 7y agoDon't refer to freedom of speech like something everyone is obliged to provide. That's not what it means. https://xkcd.com/1357/ https://xkcd.com/1357/
- s9w 7y agoThat's orthogonal to what I said. I do have the right to say controversial things (at least I would have if I would be American, but let's assume that). Sites can limit that and delete comments they don't like - that's ok! But I am still allowed to use external software to still exercise that right.
- julienreszka 7y agoThat exactly what it means
- marcinzm 7y agoNo it's not. I am in no way required to provide you a platform to talk through or to allow you to continue using a platform you've been using. All it means is that the government, key word, is not allowed to stop you from using a platform you are allowed by it's owners to use.
- TomMckenny 7y agoSo if I do not add support for unlimited anonymous comments at my own expense to my website, I am engaging in Orwellian oppression? Then allow me to comment on this repo and display those comments prominently. Because if I’m not allowed to add whatever opinion I want to the readme, I am being horribly oppressed.
- s9w 7y agoI think your comment is misguided. I have neither used the term Orwellian or opressions, nor do I have any affiliation with this extension. I'm literally just saying that some people like to be able to say what they are allowed to, that this could be a tool to do so, and that that is OK. That was a direct response to the phrase "people still think unrestricted user content could somehow be a good idea", which implies that free speech is NEVER a good idea. I disagree with that.
- tetizera 7y agoThe problem isn't free speech, but rather the distribution of illegal pornography and other illegal things.
- brokenmachine 7y agoI don't know about this project specifically, but usually comments are simply plain text. If there's links to illegal stuff there, then something needs to be done about the actual site hosting the illegal stuff.
- TomMckenny 7y agoI read it to mean “allowing unrestricted comments on a web page is a bad idea” Perhaps you read it as “allowing unrestricted comments on a web page _or anywhere else_ is a bad idea” But that second one has never been the case. People have alway been able to post responses on their own sites with links to the original. Many places like reddit are primarily that. I think others maybe confusing the right to free speech with a right to vandalize.