3 ms·
Hey, a genuine Strawman argument! You've implied two separate false equivalences, here: • That "censorship" necessarily and only means "removing obvious child
by SkittyDog 5y ago
Hey, a genuine Strawman argument!
You've implied two separate false equivalences, here:
• That "censorship" necessarily and only means "removing obvious child pornography", AND
• that in order to "take accountability", a company must "hire a ton of people".
You haven't established why either of those equivalences are a reasonable interpretation of the parent statement. And to this casual observer, it would appear as though you are deliberately conflating extremes in a rather disingenuous fashion.
- mrtranscendence 5y agoNo, the poster is not implying that "'censorship' necessarily and only means 'removing obvious child pornography'". They're implying that removing child pornography is one form that censorship might take, and that entirely removing the ability to censor would remove the ability to censor child pornography. You might have valid objections to this, but it's not the same as what you've written. As to the second point, either an organization has the manpower to defend itself from content that it is "accountable" for, or it will be unable to defend itself when necessary. It seems pretty clear to me that only organizations with decent resources would be able to moderate content in the "if you censor, you're accountable" regime.
- wutwutwutwut 5y ago> You've implied two separate false equivalences, here: • That "censorship" necessarily and only means "removing obvious child pornography" I implied no such thing. Claiming strawman argument and following it up with a statement made out of thin air is silly at best. Read more carefully!