5 ms·

What about spam? Scams? Child porn? Doxxing? People's very personal data? A bounty to hurt a specific person, with included address and identifying information

What about spam? Scams? Child porn? Doxxing? People's very personal data? A bounty to hurt a specific person, with included address and identifying information? There's always an exception. Some amount of moderation is always necessary, and naturally there will always be gray area cases.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> What about spam? Spam filtering isn't censorship because the recipient doesn't want to receive it. Censorship is removing access to material the recipient would otherwise choose to view. > Scams? Child porn? Doxxing? People's very personal data? A bounty to hurt a specific person, with included address and identifying information? All of these things have illegal non-speech components (fraud, child abuse), so you can go arrest the perpetrators directly and leave the platforms out of it.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  But do you leave up the porn?
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    Assign the copyright to the victim. Then they can make a copyright claim.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      And in cases where the victim is a child (like child porn) and their guardian is involved in the abuse (which is often the case)? Then you either wait for the child to be of age to assert copyright, and force them to confront this individually, or you wait for guardianship to unwind and hope the state or foster guardian or whatever is interested in pursuing a copyright violation on behalf of a minor.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        Having the minor in the custody of the abuser is by far the more serious problem, so solve that first, and if that isn't happening fast enough, fix whatever is preventing that. Then the copyright claim solves itself -- there would be lawyers lined up in front of your door for the chance to sue child pornographers on a contingent fee basis.
    - ratww 6y ago
      > Assign the copyright to the victim. Then they can make a copyright claim. Are you really saying that the way to deal with depictions of child-abuse is by assigning copyright to the victim and then asking the victim to deal with it judicially? This kind of process is onerous even for regular people in non-dire situations, let alone for children who have just been a victim of sexual abuse. By asking from action coming from the child, you are advocating something that is effectively forcing them to re-live the abuse. Imagine being rescued by the police or some other group, and then having to independently deal with lawyers in the fallout of the case just to get justice done. This is why we have prosecutors and laws for. On top of that, it doesn't even make sense from a copyright perspective. Not to mention how problematic copyright is in itself, and how nonsensical your suggestion is, since copyright can and is used as a much more powerful weapon for censorship, when used against criticism for example. The current system is much better than this. Not having someone yell "fire" and cause harm, or to have propagation of child-abuse dealt without doing more harm to the child are WAY more important than having absolute freedom of harming others (or, as you call it, freedom from censorship). To quote Joseph Welch, "At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        > This kind of process is onerous even for regular people in non-dire situations, let alone for children who have just been a victim of sexual abuse. By asking from action coming from the child, you are advocating something that is effectively forcing them to re-live the abuse. Nonsense. Copyright is designed as a profit-generating system. All they'd have to do is deploy a third party to enforce it. There are many organizations that would love do to this work, and on top of that get paid for it out of the judgments against pedophiles. The victims wouldn't even have to be involved in the cases. And it has the extremely useful property of creating a market incentive to bankrupt pedophiles. > On top of that, it doesn't even make sense from a copyright perspective. Hollywood would presumably by very interested to hear of this possibility of holding the copyright to the work of an "actor" without their consent. > Not to mention how problematic copyright is in itself, and how nonsensical your suggestion is, since copyright can and is used as a much more powerful weapon for censorship, when used against criticism for example. This is why fair use exists. Copyright doesn't always get that right, but now you're leveling a criticism of copyright implementation at a use case where it doesn't even apply. Pedophiles aren't distributing child pornography for the purposes of criticism.
- rumanator 6y ago
  > All of these things have illegal non-speech components (fraud, child abuse), Do you find slander to not fit the bill? And what about calling for a military coup to persecuted anyone they see fit?
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > Do you find slander to not fit the bill? But it's still the same thing -- what does it have to do with the platform? Go sue the actual speaker, and keep collecting damages from them as long as they keep using the platform to publish the slander. > And what about calling for a military coup to persecuted anyone they see fit? A military coup pretty obviously falls under a non-speech act which is itself illegal.
    - rumanator 6y ago
      > But it's still the same thing -- what does it have to do with the platform? The platform is the medium that's enabling slander. If Bolsonaro's minions were publishing their fake news and slanderous attacks on newspapers, the newspaper would also be held accountable for it's responsibility of wilfully spreading false information. > Go sue the actual speaker It's not an either/or thing. Similarly, ISPs are also forced to comply with cutting access to services that violate the law.
      - hu3 6y ago
        > The platform is the medium that's enabling slander. That's a naive take. It's like saying roads enabled accidents and thus must be demolished. On most countries, usually the specific infriging content is ordered to be taken down, not the entire account. Read about DMCA for example. Youtube channels have specific content taken down, not the entire channel.
        rumanator 6y ago
        > That's a naive take. It's like saying roads enabled accidents and thus must be demolished. No, it's like saying that roads which are found to be repeatedly causing accidents should be fixed in order to allow everyone to drive safely. Which is what happens in real life. And you seemed to have turned a blind eye to the fact that ISPs have been for decades complying with court orders to remove access to illegal content hosted and made available by them. You don't need to resort to convoluted apples-to-oranges comparisons to understand the problem and it's solution.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> What about spam? Spam filtering isn't censorship because the recipient doesn't want to receive it. Censorship is removing access to material the recipient would otherwise choose to view. > Scams? Child porn? Doxxing? People's very personal data? A bounty to hurt a specific person, with included address and identifying information? All of these things have illegal non-speech components (fraud, child abuse), so you can go arrest the perpetrators directly and leave the platforms out of it.

joshuamorton 6y ago
But do you leave up the porn?
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  Assign the copyright to the victim. Then they can make a copyright claim.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    And in cases where the victim is a child (like child porn) and their guardian is involved in the abuse (which is often the case)? Then you either wait for the child to be of age to assert copyright, and force them to confront this individually, or you wait for guardianship to unwind and hope the state or foster guardian or whatever is interested in pursuing a copyright violation on behalf of a minor.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      Having the minor in the custody of the abuser is by far the more serious problem, so solve that first, and if that isn't happening fast enough, fix whatever is preventing that. Then the copyright claim solves itself -- there would be lawyers lined up in front of your door for the chance to sue child pornographers on a contingent fee basis.
  - ratww 6y ago
    > Assign the copyright to the victim. Then they can make a copyright claim. Are you really saying that the way to deal with depictions of child-abuse is by assigning copyright to the victim and then asking the victim to deal with it judicially? This kind of process is onerous even for regular people in non-dire situations, let alone for children who have just been a victim of sexual abuse. By asking from action coming from the child, you are advocating something that is effectively forcing them to re-live the abuse. Imagine being rescued by the police or some other group, and then having to independently deal with lawyers in the fallout of the case just to get justice done. This is why we have prosecutors and laws for. On top of that, it doesn't even make sense from a copyright perspective. Not to mention how problematic copyright is in itself, and how nonsensical your suggestion is, since copyright can and is used as a much more powerful weapon for censorship, when used against criticism for example. The current system is much better than this. Not having someone yell "fire" and cause harm, or to have propagation of child-abuse dealt without doing more harm to the child are WAY more important than having absolute freedom of harming others (or, as you call it, freedom from censorship). To quote Joseph Welch, "At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      > This kind of process is onerous even for regular people in non-dire situations, let alone for children who have just been a victim of sexual abuse. By asking from action coming from the child, you are advocating something that is effectively forcing them to re-live the abuse. Nonsense. Copyright is designed as a profit-generating system. All they'd have to do is deploy a third party to enforce it. There are many organizations that would love do to this work, and on top of that get paid for it out of the judgments against pedophiles. The victims wouldn't even have to be involved in the cases. And it has the extremely useful property of creating a market incentive to bankrupt pedophiles. > On top of that, it doesn't even make sense from a copyright perspective. Hollywood would presumably by very interested to hear of this possibility of holding the copyright to the work of an "actor" without their consent. > Not to mention how problematic copyright is in itself, and how nonsensical your suggestion is, since copyright can and is used as a much more powerful weapon for censorship, when used against criticism for example. This is why fair use exists. Copyright doesn't always get that right, but now you're leveling a criticism of copyright implementation at a use case where it doesn't even apply. Pedophiles aren't distributing child pornography for the purposes of criticism.
rumanator 6y ago
> All of these things have illegal non-speech components (fraud, child abuse), Do you find slander to not fit the bill? And what about calling for a military coup to persecuted anyone they see fit?
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > Do you find slander to not fit the bill? But it's still the same thing -- what does it have to do with the platform? Go sue the actual speaker, and keep collecting damages from them as long as they keep using the platform to publish the slander. > And what about calling for a military coup to persecuted anyone they see fit? A military coup pretty obviously falls under a non-speech act which is itself illegal.
  - rumanator 6y ago
    > But it's still the same thing -- what does it have to do with the platform? The platform is the medium that's enabling slander. If Bolsonaro's minions were publishing their fake news and slanderous attacks on newspapers, the newspaper would also be held accountable for it's responsibility of wilfully spreading false information. > Go sue the actual speaker It's not an either/or thing. Similarly, ISPs are also forced to comply with cutting access to services that violate the law.
    - hu3 6y ago
      > The platform is the medium that's enabling slander. That's a naive take. It's like saying roads enabled accidents and thus must be demolished. On most countries, usually the specific infriging content is ordered to be taken down, not the entire account. Read about DMCA for example. Youtube channels have specific content taken down, not the entire channel.
      - rumanator 6y ago
        > That's a naive take. It's like saying roads enabled accidents and thus must be demolished. No, it's like saying that roads which are found to be repeatedly causing accidents should be fixed in order to allow everyone to drive safely. Which is what happens in real life. And you seemed to have turned a blind eye to the fact that ISPs have been for decades complying with court orders to remove access to illegal content hosted and made available by them. You don't need to resort to convoluted apples-to-oranges comparisons to understand the problem and it's solution.