4 ms·

Good. This is especially welcome news in the context of the unprecedented attack on kiwi farms. As I said in a different thread, we have laws preventing busine

Good. This is especially welcome news in the context of the unprecedented attack on kiwi farms. As I said in a different thread, we have laws preventing businesses from discriminating. We do not allow shops to put up “no blacks here” signs. Why do we allow infrastructure providers from doing essentially the same thing? Censorship, of any kind from anyone, government or corporation is an abomination that must be stamped out. We cannot have a civilised society as long as censorship is accepted.

IntelMiner 4y ago
Do you filter "spam" from your email inbox? If so, why? By your...train of thought. "Censorship of any kind" means that rejecting those leagues of boner pills and overseas wives ready to marry you is rejection of their right to speak freely to you
- throwawayacc2 4y ago
  You can’t be serious. Are you serious? Spam is not censored. You have access to it. You click on the spam folder and you can read the spam email in all it’s glory! And before you even mention auto deletion, you can disable that. I think that should be opt in not opt out but, yeah, spam in not being censored.
  - IntelMiner 4y ago
    You have to click a spam folder. You have to make a conscious effort to interact with the free speech being sent to you. Therefore it's not free
    - throwawayacc2 4y ago
      We have different definitions of censorship. To me that is not censorship. Censorship is making information functionality unavailable or altering it. Delete it or deliberately make it very hard to access or change it’s contents. If you click a button or even add a message ( apart from the content ) that is not censorship. That’s why for example I don’t consider it censorship when youtube added covid messages to certain videos.
      - IntelMiner 4y ago
        Sounds like some mental gymnastics to me
        hunterb123 4y ago
        No you just loosened the definition of censorship to fit your terrible analogy, then you insulted the GP accusing them of doing mental gymnastics. You're projecting. But since you do want to stick to the spam filter in your email box analogy I would like to propose a solution. Would you prefer users be able to manage block lists, filters, and such themselves instead of content being removed for all users? Do you really prefer this large social media oligopoly to have have final say in what the masses should see? Why not let the users manage what they see? Do you feel the same way about all subjects? Do you support the right of ISPs blocking porn for example?
        IntelMiner 4y ago
        hunterb123 4y ago
        First off, I'm not the user you were replying to. Second, you're not really listening, you're just hurling insults and getting angry, that's not a healthy debate. You didn't attempt to answer any of my prompts. You didn't even attempt to clarify your definition or understand mine or the GPs. Sure maybe spam filter lists should be more open? I don't really disagree nor is it really relevant. It's whataboutism. Yes spam filters could be more user sided, but so could social media moderation. Do you agree or disagree with that?
  - wpietri 4y ago
    That's incorrect. Most of the spam never reaches your mailbox. It's only the least dubious of it that gets passed on.
- NaturalPhallacy 4y ago
boopmaster 4y ago
This wouldn’t be my first choice of examples. Unmoderated swatting forums (as I understand that it was) goes beyond free speech. The first amendment does not protect death threats.
- throwawayacc2 4y ago
  You understand wrong what kiwi farms is. The moderation there is far better to facebook for example. Not in small reason due to the fact they don’t censor. They comply with the law. Unlawful content is pulled down immediately, lawful content stays up. Cloudflare lied to you when they said “human life is in immediate danger”. In matters like this, it’s best to actually look at how both sides present the issue.
- jwond 4y ago
  Swatting is illegal. If Kiwi Farms or its members are implicated in illegal activities then it should be handled through the legal system where due process is respected.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

IntelMiner 4y ago

Do you filter "spam" from your email inbox? If so, why? By your...train of thought. "Censorship of any kind" means that rejecting those leagues of boner pills and overseas wives ready to marry you is rejection of their right to speak freely to you

throwawayacc2 4y ago
You can’t be serious. Are you serious? Spam is not censored. You have access to it. You click on the spam folder and you can read the spam email in all it’s glory! And before you even mention auto deletion, you can disable that. I think that should be opt in not opt out but, yeah, spam in not being censored.
- IntelMiner 4y ago
  You have to click a spam folder. You have to make a conscious effort to interact with the free speech being sent to you. Therefore it's not free
  - throwawayacc2 4y ago
    We have different definitions of censorship. To me that is not censorship. Censorship is making information functionality unavailable or altering it. Delete it or deliberately make it very hard to access or change it’s contents. If you click a button or even add a message ( apart from the content ) that is not censorship. That’s why for example I don’t consider it censorship when youtube added covid messages to certain videos.
    - IntelMiner 4y ago
      Sounds like some mental gymnastics to me
      - hunterb123 4y ago
        No you just loosened the definition of censorship to fit your terrible analogy, then you insulted the GP accusing them of doing mental gymnastics. You're projecting. But since you do want to stick to the spam filter in your email box analogy I would like to propose a solution. Would you prefer users be able to manage block lists, filters, and such themselves instead of content being removed for all users? Do you really prefer this large social media oligopoly to have have final say in what the masses should see? Why not let the users manage what they see? Do you feel the same way about all subjects? Do you support the right of ISPs blocking porn for example?
        IntelMiner 4y ago
        hunterb123 4y ago
        First off, I'm not the user you were replying to. Second, you're not really listening, you're just hurling insults and getting angry, that's not a healthy debate. You didn't attempt to answer any of my prompts. You didn't even attempt to clarify your definition or understand mine or the GPs. Sure maybe spam filter lists should be more open? I don't really disagree nor is it really relevant. It's whataboutism. Yes spam filters could be more user sided, but so could social media moderation. Do you agree or disagree with that?
- wpietri 4y ago
  That's incorrect. Most of the spam never reaches your mailbox. It's only the least dubious of it that gets passed on.
NaturalPhallacy 4y ago

boopmaster 4y ago

This wouldn’t be my first choice of examples. Unmoderated swatting forums (as I understand that it was) goes beyond free speech. The first amendment does not protect death threats.

throwawayacc2 4y ago
You understand wrong what kiwi farms is. The moderation there is far better to facebook for example. Not in small reason due to the fact they don’t censor. They comply with the law. Unlawful content is pulled down immediately, lawful content stays up. Cloudflare lied to you when they said “human life is in immediate danger”. In matters like this, it’s best to actually look at how both sides present the issue.
jwond 4y ago
Swatting is illegal. If Kiwi Farms or its members are implicated in illegal activities then it should be handled through the legal system where due process is respected.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]