3 ms·

> they remove entire classes of people They remove themselves, voluntarily. I have a problem with censorship by Twitter or Facebook because of their near-monop

> they remove entire classes of people They remove themselves, voluntarily. I have a problem with censorship by Twitter or Facebook because of their near-monopoly status on social media, but I have no problem if some small company serves their small target audience with censorhip that they choose themselves.

scarface74 7y ago
So why couldn’t a company create a social network to serve their own small group of people?
pjc50 7y ago
I meant "Mormons removing queer people from their media because they don't like the representation". For a more international version of this, see Eurovision and the refusal of various Arab countries to broadcast the Israeli entries at all - which led to said Arab countries being excluded from it for refusal to comply with the rules.
- brobdingnagians 7y ago
  It's within the rights of the Arabs to not broadcast, and within the rights of Eurovision to not allow them to participate. Are you suggesting that we should force people to watch things they don't agree with? That isn't exactly what you said, but seems to suggest it. I agree that taking the movie, editing it, copying it, and selling it-- is and should be illegal. But other solutions like client side indices of what to skip or mute don't harm the producer and are not editing of the copyrighted material itself.
  - swebs 7y ago
    >I agree that taking the movie, editing it, copying it, and selling it-- is and should be illegal. I don't see why it should be illegal at all. Assuming: 1) The original owner gets paid for each copy sold 2) End customers are clearly informed that the edited version has been edited.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    > Are you suggesting that we should force people to watch things they don't agree with? That is explicitly what I'm avoiding saying, because obviously that's an illiberal and unworkable idea. In fact, I'm not trying to mandate anything at all. Not every observation is a criticism, not every criticism is a threat.
    - brobdingnagians 7y ago
      Well said.
  - michaelt 7y ago
    > Are you suggesting that we should force people to watch things they don't agree with? That isn't exactly what you said, but seems to suggest it. It's more complicated than that. The right not to listen to things you don't like applies equally to someone who doesn't listen to rap music because too much of it demeans women; and someone who doesn't listen to rap music because too much of it is by black people. But if those two people announce those tastes in public, they should expect different responses for obvious reasons!
UserIsUnused 7y ago
It's two different things indeed. Still, I do have a problem if it is the religious sect censoring but I do not if it is a company offering that service to the religious, and customers choose to use it, but not because a religious leader said so. This is because religious leaders have too much power, easily becomes cultish, I'm really afraid of religions that are just ways to make money, I think it's unethical, and because religion can be like a drug, if you add censorship into the mix, it's too dangerous. Basically, don't put censorship into the hands of powerful entities, being it facebook, or religious leaders. As a disclaimer, I'm a Christian, with a catholic upbringing. I like religions, I think it's an important part of human life, it's just that they can be very dangerous as well.
- beerandt 7y ago
  >don't put censorship into the hands of powerful entities, being it facebook, or religious leaders. Umm, one of the core principles of religion is providing a framework for mortality. I'd say it's exactly within the scope of religion. The practical implication of giving religious leaders "too much power" is a cost of religious freedom.

scarface74 7y ago

So why couldn’t a company create a social network to serve their own small group of people?

pjc50 7y ago

I meant "Mormons removing queer people from their media because they don't like the representation". For a more international version of this, see Eurovision and the refusal of various Arab countries to broadcast the Israeli entries at all - which led to said Arab countries being excluded from it for refusal to comply with the rules.

brobdingnagians 7y ago
It's within the rights of the Arabs to not broadcast, and within the rights of Eurovision to not allow them to participate. Are you suggesting that we should force people to watch things they don't agree with? That isn't exactly what you said, but seems to suggest it. I agree that taking the movie, editing it, copying it, and selling it-- is and should be illegal. But other solutions like client side indices of what to skip or mute don't harm the producer and are not editing of the copyrighted material itself.
- swebs 7y ago
  >I agree that taking the movie, editing it, copying it, and selling it-- is and should be illegal. I don't see why it should be illegal at all. Assuming: 1) The original owner gets paid for each copy sold 2) End customers are clearly informed that the edited version has been edited.
- pjc50 7y ago
  > Are you suggesting that we should force people to watch things they don't agree with? That is explicitly what I'm avoiding saying, because obviously that's an illiberal and unworkable idea. In fact, I'm not trying to mandate anything at all. Not every observation is a criticism, not every criticism is a threat.
  - brobdingnagians 7y ago
    Well said.
- michaelt 7y ago
  > Are you suggesting that we should force people to watch things they don't agree with? That isn't exactly what you said, but seems to suggest it. It's more complicated than that. The right not to listen to things you don't like applies equally to someone who doesn't listen to rap music because too much of it demeans women; and someone who doesn't listen to rap music because too much of it is by black people. But if those two people announce those tastes in public, they should expect different responses for obvious reasons!

UserIsUnused 7y ago

It's two different things indeed. Still, I do have a problem if it is the religious sect censoring but I do not if it is a company offering that service to the religious, and customers choose to use it, but not because a religious leader said so. This is because religious leaders have too much power, easily becomes cultish, I'm really afraid of religions that are just ways to make money, I think it's unethical, and because religion can be like a drug, if you add censorship into the mix, it's too dangerous. Basically, don't put censorship into the hands of powerful entities, being it facebook, or religious leaders. As a disclaimer, I'm a Christian, with a catholic upbringing. I like religions, I think it's an important part of human life, it's just that they can be very dangerous as well.

beerandt 7y ago
>don't put censorship into the hands of powerful entities, being it facebook, or religious leaders. Umm, one of the core principles of religion is providing a framework for mortality. I'd say it's exactly within the scope of religion. The practical implication of giving religious leaders "too much power" is a cost of religious freedom.