3 ms·
This is probably the worst example to use. It is like arguing against capital punishment using Ted Bundy's case as example. Generally that works the other way
by lamontcg 5y ago
This is probably the worst example to use.
It is like arguing against capital punishment using Ted Bundy's case as example. Generally that works the other way with most people and that's the kind of person they enthusiastically support the state murdering.
Similarly the reaction of most people to Google removing that video is going to be "good" and you're going to have a very uphill battle convincing them otherwise, and you're probably going to lose.
If you talk about university researchers that study pornography and Google nuking their research or their ability to share their research with other institutions, you'd probably make more headway.
It is only on a site like HN where the most upvoted commment is "OMG they deleted practically the worst video imaginable from a mass shooting incident can you believe those fascists?" and everyone votes it up to the top.
The HN echo chamber bubble is real.
- mleonhard 5y agoI think the main point of your comment is insightful. The final two sentences are distracting and unnecessary. How about deleting them?
- lamontcg 5y agoNo, they're really accurate and to the point, its quite relevant that HN is an echo chamber.
- chii 5y agoit's not a bad example at all - the point is that even if the video is vile, it is not and should not be google's mandate to delete private files by applying some extra-judicial moral judgement. Let the law work - possession of illegal material should be enforced by the police, not by a corporation that the user cannot hold accountable.
- lamontcg 5y agoYou will not convince anyone to agree with you who does not already agree with those principles already, and you will lose 90% of the rest of the people who find that video horrific and never get past it.