3 ms·
> Mostly only illegal content should be removed. Did you read the article? Removing illegal content (like how to make a bomb) is a censorship, because sender a
by ordu 4y ago
> Mostly only illegal content should be removed.
Did you read the article? Removing illegal content (like how to make a bomb) is a censorship, because sender and receiver are happy with it. We need to bring arguments like "the good of a society" to justify removing illegal content.
But harassment, threats and suchlike no one wants to get. Sender may be happy to send it, while receiver is not happy to receive. We need not to resort to a good for a society explaining, why these should be banned.
- bawolff 4y ago> But harassment, threats and suchlike no one wants to get. Sender may be happy to send it, while receiver is not happy to receive. We need not to resort to a good for a society explaining, why these should be banned. How many people like getting criticism of any form? Should we ban all criticism?
- ordu 4y agoNo we shouldn't.
- andsoitis 4y agoWhile “don’t like to get” isn’t the right principle to decide what to ban, suggesting an equivalence between harassment and criticism is not pretty.
- bawolff 4y agoI don't think the difference is all that clear cut, or at least there is a lot of behaviour that has overlap where it is unclear which side things fall. Like take a protest (for whatever issue you want). Is that criticism or harrasment? Or both?