3 ms·

It's not for their own good. It's for the good of the impressionable and emotionally unstable teenagers that would have found these communities and latched onto

by ahelwer 15y ago

It's not for their own good. It's for the good of the impressionable and emotionally unstable teenagers that would have found these communities and latched onto them as their negative impulses were validated.

pjscott 15y ago
You're right, of course. I must have spent thirty or forty seconds looking for a more accurate phrase, but settled on "for their own good" because it flowed better. Now, those pro-anorexia blogs are creepy and disheartening; I looked through some a while back, and they really are as sad as they sound. If Tumblr's goal is to prevent more teenagers from latching onto that subculture, there are a few things they might try. They could stick warning banners up on the blogs in question, visibly registering their protest without going so far as to remove content. Or they might shrug regretfully and say there's not much they can do, since they hardly have a monopoly on the blogging platform market, which would be true. Setting themselves up as censors was not their only option, and as far as I'm concerned, it should have been pretty far down on the list of ideas. In general, I'm uncomfortable with the impulse to try to stop people from saying messages that you don't want others to hear.
- ahelwer 15y ago
  I, too, am uncomfortable with such things. The slippery slope does exist, although to a lesser degree when the entity does not hold a monopoly (don't want to drive users away to more permissive options). However, the slipperiness of the slope should not preclude people stepping out onto it. It is less comfortable out there, less simple, less black-and-white than settling at one extreme or another. To take the example from the other direction, consider zero-tolerance policies for weapons at schools. I don't think many people would find it reasonable for a young student to be expelled for bringing a swiss army knife his grandfather gave him to school. Doesn't matter, says the school district. Slippery slope. Where do we draw the line? As rational individuals, we can decide where to draw the line. This vastly increases the surface area of critical attacks - the line will seem arbitrary, and there will always be boundary cases which could go one way or the other. "Why this and not that?" will be heard often. It's an easy target. So yes, the easy answer is that all discourse should be allowed. But really, I don't want people advocating that bullshit to teenagers.
  - pjscott 15y ago
    I think that every advocate for censorship that I've ever heard has said some subset of the following things: 1. Freedom of speech is important, but this is a special case. 2. This stuff really is harmful. I don't want bad people exposing children to sex/communism/homosexuality/anorexia/witchcraft/whatever. 3. We're only going to censor $TOPIC_OF_THE_DAY. This is not a slippery slope. 4. Be reasonable. Of course in this case, the stakes aren't that high, since it's easy for censored blogs to move away from Tumblr. This policy is more about social signaling than about seriously trying to help anyone.

by ahelwer 15y ago

pjscott 15y ago

You're right, of course. I must have spent thirty or forty seconds looking for a more accurate phrase, but settled on "for their own good" because it flowed better. Now, those pro-anorexia blogs are creepy and disheartening; I looked through some a while back, and they really are as sad as they sound. If Tumblr's goal is to prevent more teenagers from latching onto that subculture, there are a few things they might try. They could stick warning banners up on the blogs in question, visibly registering their protest without going so far as to remove content. Or they might shrug regretfully and say there's not much they can do, since they hardly have a monopoly on the blogging platform market, which would be true. Setting themselves up as censors was not their only option, and as far as I'm concerned, it should have been pretty far down on the list of ideas. In general, I'm uncomfortable with the impulse to try to stop people from saying messages that you don't want others to hear.

ahelwer 15y ago
I, too, am uncomfortable with such things. The slippery slope does exist, although to a lesser degree when the entity does not hold a monopoly (don't want to drive users away to more permissive options). However, the slipperiness of the slope should not preclude people stepping out onto it. It is less comfortable out there, less simple, less black-and-white than settling at one extreme or another. To take the example from the other direction, consider zero-tolerance policies for weapons at schools. I don't think many people would find it reasonable for a young student to be expelled for bringing a swiss army knife his grandfather gave him to school. Doesn't matter, says the school district. Slippery slope. Where do we draw the line? As rational individuals, we can decide where to draw the line. This vastly increases the surface area of critical attacks - the line will seem arbitrary, and there will always be boundary cases which could go one way or the other. "Why this and not that?" will be heard often. It's an easy target. So yes, the easy answer is that all discourse should be allowed. But really, I don't want people advocating that bullshit to teenagers.
- pjscott 15y ago
  I think that every advocate for censorship that I've ever heard has said some subset of the following things: 1. Freedom of speech is important, but this is a special case. 2. This stuff really is harmful. I don't want bad people exposing children to sex/communism/homosexuality/anorexia/witchcraft/whatever. 3. We're only going to censor $TOPIC_OF_THE_DAY. This is not a slippery slope. 4. Be reasonable. Of course in this case, the stakes aren't that high, since it's easy for censored blogs to move away from Tumblr. This policy is more about social signaling than about seriously trying to help anyone.