4 ms·
Wait, wait, wait. So this was specifically about censoring "illegal" content? That's not in your post at all. in fact, you present it as a direct quote without
by hullo 15y ago
Wait, wait, wait. So this was specifically about censoring "illegal" content? That's not in your post at all. in fact, you present it as a direct quote without mentioning illegal content at all. “Senator Schumer is in favor of censoring the internet.” Generically censoring the internet is much more sensational then specifically censoring illegal content. (However you define that, and yes I understand the nuance between how do you determine what's legal/illegal and what's not vis a vis copyright etc., but: the average layperson reading a sensationalized piece does not.)
- inmygarage 15y agoI asked twice. The first time he said "censor the internet" and then I think he heard the shock in my voice when I asked him to repeat and he said "he is in favor of censoring illegal content." So perhaps worthy of a clarification.
- Confusion 15y ago"Censoring illegal content" is weasel terminology and a huge red herring. If a government chooses to censor content, that content is considered illegal by definition: if it wasn't considered illegal, the government would have no grounds to censor it. The problem is not that they want to censor things. Almost everyone agrees that some things need to be censored (e.g. publications found to be defamatory, publications of stolen trade secrets, etc.). The problem is what content they want to be able to declare illegal at little more than a whim.