7 ms·

That is how all the censorship stories start. In the beginning, you censor several "reasonable" resources, and after a while, you get the Great Western Firewall

That is how all the censorship stories start. In the beginning, you censor several "reasonable" resources, and after a while, you get the Great Western Firewall. For example, Russia introduced Internet censorship laws in 2012 with the excuse of blocking some Caucasus terrorist groups' websites and "protecting children". In 2022 it is nearly impossible to surf the net as usual without a VPN.

DoItToMe81 4y ago
We had considered implementing a very extensive filter in the early 2000s. What started as blocking porn sites with questionable moderation and a fair amount of pedophiles transformed (before it was even codified into law!) into sites being blocked for personal offences, including a dentist's business site with a gif the censor board objected to, and perceived moral degeneration, likesites on safe usage of drugs and how to avoid overdosing. It wasn't even a slippery slope, it was more of a crumbling ledge.
- daniel-cussen 4y ago
  ...it was more of a crumbling ledge. -- DoItToMe81 Sun May 1, 2022
seniorivn 4y ago
hackernews is a joke, why do you downvote this? Censorship is bad, is as simple as killing is bad. that's something that should be learned during childhood and be a common ground for a modern society.
- Gupie 4y ago
  Classic slippery slope fallacy. Censorship is necessary to limit harm to the vulnerable in society. Or are you on favour of allowing rape videos, kiddie porn, ..., of allowing ‘Troll factories’ to spread Russian pro-war lies online?
  - seniorivn 4y ago
    sorry for the late reply, but here it is anyway My ideal social network is a network where all kinds public statements are completely free to be published. If you publish something illegal you should be legally liable for that. If something illegal was published anonymously, an author should be given a time threshold when he can prove his/her personality and become personally liable for that content/statement. The only additional feature that would improve user experience without harming people's freedom, is labeling of content by a thirdparty(chosen by the enduser, like i would chose one labeling system of content, that would put the most horrible things under "nsfw" clickwall, and someone else might choose a labeling system that puts under a clickwall(one click away for you to view that) everything that has a chance to offend anyone) Horrible content like footage of crimes presented as entertainment should be treated the same way as described above.
  - Amezarak 4y ago
    I am in fact in favor of “troll factories” being allowed to spread “pro war propaganda” online, because I do not think we should have the norm in place that videos can simply be declared propaganda and censored because they might cause someone to disagree with the foreign policy goals of whatever government they live under. For example, if that was permissible and expected, then I would fully expect a hypothetical video of $ALLY/SELF committing war crimes to be censored as $ENEMY propaganda. Just as the Russians do. If you entrust the “experts” with the ability to tell you what is true, you will not be living in a democratic society.
    - deepsun 4y ago
      I'd agree with you if I didn't see first-hand how propaganda starts wars. And yes, reasonable censorship helps, e.g. YouTube blocking RT is very much positive for the whole world.
      - Amezarak 4y ago
        Propaganda has always been a problem and democracies and led to wars. What is different now? Also, in this particular case, what war are we stopping by banning Americans or Europeans from seeing Russian propaganda? It looks to me like that ship has sailed. In fact, if anything, it appears to be we’ve opened the floodgates to pro-Ukrainian propaganda, as if being anti-Russian invasion means we must therefore accept all things pro-Ukraine. As with the Ghost of Kiev, people have even said even if it’s not true, we should still believe it. Since this type of propaganda has encouraged the arming of Ukraine by the west and increasing escalations, it seems like it is more likely to increase the scale, scope, and length of the war. Should we ban Ukrainian propaganda?
Amezarak 4y ago
Yes, this is a case where the slippery slope is real. Another example is that Paul Graham and Marc Andressen are on hate speech watchlists run by ex-Twitter employees and funded by the German government. “Hate speech”, “public order”, and “disinformation” are all just very vague banners under which varying groups can implement their preferred censorship. https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/1516860142737780736 https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/1516860142737780736
deepsun 4y ago
It's not necessarily will become a great wall. E.g. they already censor child porn. Yes, propaganda is very capable to start wars and genocide (see Rwanda). I'm all for reasonable censorship, and it will not necessarily grow into bad censorship. You make it sound like white or black.

DoItToMe81 4y ago

We had considered implementing a very extensive filter in the early 2000s. What started as blocking porn sites with questionable moderation and a fair amount of pedophiles transformed (before it was even codified into law!) into sites being blocked for personal offences, including a dentist's business site with a gif the censor board objected to, and perceived moral degeneration, likesites on safe usage of drugs and how to avoid overdosing. It wasn't even a slippery slope, it was more of a crumbling ledge.

daniel-cussen 4y ago
...it was more of a crumbling ledge. -- DoItToMe81 Sun May 1, 2022

seniorivn 4y ago

hackernews is a joke, why do you downvote this? Censorship is bad, is as simple as killing is bad. that's something that should be learned during childhood and be a common ground for a modern society.

Gupie 4y ago
Classic slippery slope fallacy. Censorship is necessary to limit harm to the vulnerable in society. Or are you on favour of allowing rape videos, kiddie porn, ..., of allowing ‘Troll factories’ to spread Russian pro-war lies online?
- seniorivn 4y ago
  sorry for the late reply, but here it is anyway My ideal social network is a network where all kinds public statements are completely free to be published. If you publish something illegal you should be legally liable for that. If something illegal was published anonymously, an author should be given a time threshold when he can prove his/her personality and become personally liable for that content/statement. The only additional feature that would improve user experience without harming people's freedom, is labeling of content by a thirdparty(chosen by the enduser, like i would chose one labeling system of content, that would put the most horrible things under "nsfw" clickwall, and someone else might choose a labeling system that puts under a clickwall(one click away for you to view that) everything that has a chance to offend anyone) Horrible content like footage of crimes presented as entertainment should be treated the same way as described above.
- Amezarak 4y ago
  I am in fact in favor of “troll factories” being allowed to spread “pro war propaganda” online, because I do not think we should have the norm in place that videos can simply be declared propaganda and censored because they might cause someone to disagree with the foreign policy goals of whatever government they live under. For example, if that was permissible and expected, then I would fully expect a hypothetical video of $ALLY/SELF committing war crimes to be censored as $ENEMY propaganda. Just as the Russians do. If you entrust the “experts” with the ability to tell you what is true, you will not be living in a democratic society.
  - deepsun 4y ago
    I'd agree with you if I didn't see first-hand how propaganda starts wars. And yes, reasonable censorship helps, e.g. YouTube blocking RT is very much positive for the whole world.
    - Amezarak 4y ago
      Propaganda has always been a problem and democracies and led to wars. What is different now? Also, in this particular case, what war are we stopping by banning Americans or Europeans from seeing Russian propaganda? It looks to me like that ship has sailed. In fact, if anything, it appears to be we’ve opened the floodgates to pro-Ukrainian propaganda, as if being anti-Russian invasion means we must therefore accept all things pro-Ukraine. As with the Ghost of Kiev, people have even said even if it’s not true, we should still believe it. Since this type of propaganda has encouraged the arming of Ukraine by the west and increasing escalations, it seems like it is more likely to increase the scale, scope, and length of the war. Should we ban Ukrainian propaganda?

Amezarak 4y ago

Yes, this is a case where the slippery slope is real. Another example is that Paul Graham and Marc Andressen are on hate speech watchlists run by ex-Twitter employees and funded by the German government. “Hate speech”, “public order”, and “disinformation” are all just very vague banners under which varying groups can implement their preferred censorship. https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/1516860142737780736 https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/1516860142737780736

deepsun 4y ago

It's not necessarily will become a great wall. E.g. they already censor child porn. Yes, propaganda is very capable to start wars and genocide (see Rwanda). I'm all for reasonable censorship, and it will not necessarily grow into bad censorship. You make it sound like white or black.