7 ms·
Oh for crying out loud... The stuff that was allowed on reddit would get you an instant, permanent ban on pretty much every website on the internet. Do you ev
by blhack 15y ago
Oh for crying out loud...
The stuff that was allowed on reddit would get you an instant, permanent ban on pretty much every website on the internet.
Do you even know what SOPA, PIPA or ACTA do? Reddit has voluntarily taken the stance they won't allow the trade and index of child pornography on their website.
That has got nothing to do with DNS takedowns for linking to copyrighted material. It was a private decision made by a private company.
And good. The idea that people would support the exploitation of children because they have somehow wrapped it up inside of "free speech" is completely disgusting and embarrassing. Yes, you have the right to free speech, so long as it does not infringe on the liberties of others.
- Anderkent 15y agoHe mentioned SOPA PIPA and ACTA because somethingawfuls stance of these reflects its general trustworthiness. No one argues that illegal content should not be removed, and uploaders banned. Which was already being done. Child pornography was never allowed on reddit, and was removed as it was reported. This is not preventing 'exploitation of children', it's just a majority censoring topics it finds inconvenient/disturbing.
- blhack 15y ago>This is not preventing 'exploitation of children' It's preventing the trade of child pornography. How on earth do you not see this as exploitative? >It's weird how reddit was a bastion for resisting SOPA/ACTA but fear mongering in US can take over a site. That has nothing to do with SA.
- Anderkent 15y ago>It's preventing the trade of child pornography. How on earth do you not see this as exploitative? Production of child pornography is exploitative for sure. Trade? Not really, but I accept it should be illegal because it provides incentive for production. However this is not about explicit child pornography, which was never allowed on reddit and was being removed as soon as someone noticed it. Nothing changed there - it will still be banned as soon as someone will notice it. No gain from the change of stance. What has changed, however, is the banning of content that is not illegal, but that some people find disgusting/creepy.
- blhack 15y ago>Trade? Not really Well then you are incredibly naive. Do you understand what "exploit" means? They're exploiting either the naivety of the children taking these photos, or the naivety of the people who posted them to the internet. The damage isn't finished being done after the photo has been taken. The damage happens in the way that these photos are then used. Imagine doing something foolish in school and then being teased for it. Did the damage stop happening after the original act was completed, or is there damage happening in the act of teasing as well? The fact that there are people who think that this should be protected ("this" being: the exploitation and sexualization of children) is a embarrassing to anybody [read: most people] who believes in free speech.
- Anderkent 15y ago>Well then you are incredibly naive. http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html: When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. E.g. "That is an idiotic thing to say; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." please. >Do you understand what "exploit" means? They're exploiting either the naivety of the children taking these photos, or the naivety of the people who posted them to the internet. I'm not sure what kind of pictures are we talking about here. Child pornography or teenagers in underwear posing to a mirror? If the first, then it is the act of taking the photos that is exploitative. Whatever happens afterward is only immoral because it incentivises more production. >The damage isn't finished being done after the photo has been taken. The damage happens in the way that these photos are then used. Imagine doing something foolish in school and then being teased for it. I don't find anything wrong with a teenage girl being teased about a photo she posted to the internet. Teased, not bullied - but bullying is wrong whatever the cause, so we do not need new rules for this. No real damage done, and the embarrassment might teach her to be more careful on the internet (same with boys, of course - but there is less social pressure on them, so not as much teasing I would guess). >The fact that there are people who think that this should be protected ("this" being: the exploitation and sexualization of children) is a embarrassing to anybody [read: most people] who believes in free speech. If sexualization of children is so wrong, why are all the 'miss 6 year old' shows legal?
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- ugh 15y agoSA is in favor of SOPA and PIPA? Huh?
- Anderkent 15y agoWell, I didn't verify the claim made by previous post, only addressed how it is relevant (if true).
- william42 15y agoLink me to Something Awful actually supporting these laws.