3 ms·

While this policy is better than nothing, it is, as they admit, is imperfect. They may put their part of the profit to good use, but their service still provide

While this policy is better than nothing, it is, as they admit, is imperfect. They may put their part of the profit to good use, but their service still provides an implicit benefit to an offending site. The damage caused by this second part could far exceed the good they are trying to do donating their profits.

karrotwaltz 6y ago
What if the owner has a different opinion than you of what is offending and what is not? They get to remove sites you think are good and keep sites you think are bad. In the end, the only fair and objective way to filter content is the rule of law, as it applies to everyone equally. Every subjective decision will always offend some people. I personally think the linked page "the long game" [1] found in this page is more interesting on this topic than the original link. [1] https://faq.nearlyfreespeech.net/q/TheLongGame https://faq.nearlyfreespeech.net/q/TheLongGame
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > What if the owner has a different opinion than you of what is offending and what is not? They get to remove sites you think are good and keep sites you think are bad. Yup. > In the end, the only fair and objective way to filter content is the rule of law, as it applies to everyone equally While it is ideal for the rule of law to be fair and apply to everyone equally, it never actually achieves that idea. The only fair way to govern what content people are compelled to relay is to let people choose what content to relay. > Every subjective decision will always offend some people. All decisions, including the decisions to incorporate particular standards are subjective.
  - FeepingCreature 6y ago
    > While it is ideal for the rule of law to be fair and apply to everyone equally, it never actually achieves that idea. The only fair way to govern what content people are compelled to relay is to let people choose what content to relay. There is an alternative that is equally fair: don't let people choose what content to relay. This also has the benefit of weakening the impact of relayers on the conversation.

karrotwaltz 6y ago

What if the owner has a different opinion than you of what is offending and what is not? They get to remove sites you think are good and keep sites you think are bad. In the end, the only fair and objective way to filter content is the rule of law, as it applies to everyone equally. Every subjective decision will always offend some people. I personally think the linked page "the long game" [1] found in this page is more interesting on this topic than the original link. [1] https://faq.nearlyfreespeech.net/q/TheLongGame https://faq.nearlyfreespeech.net/q/TheLongGame

dragonwriter 6y ago
> What if the owner has a different opinion than you of what is offending and what is not? They get to remove sites you think are good and keep sites you think are bad. Yup. > In the end, the only fair and objective way to filter content is the rule of law, as it applies to everyone equally While it is ideal for the rule of law to be fair and apply to everyone equally, it never actually achieves that idea. The only fair way to govern what content people are compelled to relay is to let people choose what content to relay. > Every subjective decision will always offend some people. All decisions, including the decisions to incorporate particular standards are subjective.
- FeepingCreature 6y ago
  > While it is ideal for the rule of law to be fair and apply to everyone equally, it never actually achieves that idea. The only fair way to govern what content people are compelled to relay is to let people choose what content to relay. There is an alternative that is equally fair: don't let people choose what content to relay. This also has the benefit of weakening the impact of relayers on the conversation.