3 ms·

These sub-communities that people want to censor, do they have any redeeming value? Or are you just making a slippery-slope argument that this might be a prece

These sub-communities that people want to censor, do they have any redeeming value? Or are you just making a slippery-slope argument that this might be a precedent for some hypothetical future censorship of something worthwhile?

the8472 7y ago
> These sub-communities that people want to censor, do they have any redeeming value? The usual example would be cartoon child pornography. Some want to see it wiped off the face of earth, others argue it provides an outlet for pedophiles. > Or are you just making a slippery-slope argument that this might be a precedent for some hypothetical future censorship of something worthwhile? Maybe that too, but it's more about that they are not illegal, which means the judicial system has not found that they shouldn't exist and no attempt has been made to bring about such a decision. If its not the judicial system, who should be the arbiter of communities that are allowed to exist? Do we want facebook, google and cloudflare to be community-shepherds?
- Natanael_L 7y ago
  They can host their own if it's legal, can't they? So sure, kick them off if they're disruptive and hateful. They don't deserve a megaphone.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    Not when internet infrastructure refuses to host them. Yeah, you could build your own servers, ISP, DNS provider, CDN, and DDoS protection... but that's way beyond the capability of most groups.
- thephyber 7y ago
  > the judicial system has not found that they shouldn't exist and no attempt has been made to bring about such a decision. I would argue this isn't necessarily true. "I know it when I see it" -- the famous quote in a SCOTUS decision on pornography/indecency is interpreted to give local communities the ability to determine what is decent/legal. In other words, there is no one court/legal standard; it varies based on regional local standards.

the8472 7y ago

> These sub-communities that people want to censor, do they have any redeeming value? The usual example would be cartoon child pornography. Some want to see it wiped off the face of earth, others argue it provides an outlet for pedophiles. > Or are you just making a slippery-slope argument that this might be a precedent for some hypothetical future censorship of something worthwhile? Maybe that too, but it's more about that they are not illegal, which means the judicial system has not found that they shouldn't exist and no attempt has been made to bring about such a decision. If its not the judicial system, who should be the arbiter of communities that are allowed to exist? Do we want facebook, google and cloudflare to be community-shepherds?

Natanael_L 7y ago
They can host their own if it's legal, can't they? So sure, kick them off if they're disruptive and hateful. They don't deserve a megaphone.
- manfredo 7y ago
  Not when internet infrastructure refuses to host them. Yeah, you could build your own servers, ISP, DNS provider, CDN, and DDoS protection... but that's way beyond the capability of most groups.
thephyber 7y ago
> the judicial system has not found that they shouldn't exist and no attempt has been made to bring about such a decision. I would argue this isn't necessarily true. "I know it when I see it" -- the famous quote in a SCOTUS decision on pornography/indecency is interpreted to give local communities the ability to determine what is decent/legal. In other words, there is no one court/legal standard; it varies based on regional local standards.