7 ms·

> “The criteria for inclusion is handled by Reporters Without Borders, which ensures the library’s content is accurate, truthful, and sensitive,” reports Cian M

by tivert 3y ago

> “The criteria for inclusion is handled by Reporters Without Borders, which ensures the library’s content is accurate, truthful, and sensitive,” reports Cian Mahar. Whenever I see a project like this, I have to ask: what kinds of true things are censored from the "uncensored library"? > But even where almost all media is blocked or controlled, the world’s most successful computer game is still accessible. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) uses this loophole to bypass internet censorship to bring back the truth – within Minecraft.” For how long? They used to say the same thing about the internet itself.

hot_gril 3y ago
At least now a country has to ban Minecraft to ban those books, or force MC to drop its encryption and invent a very obscure Minecraft packet inspection technique that players will more easily circumvent some other way.
trelane 3y ago
> Whenever I see a project like this, I have to ask: what kinds of true things are censored from the "uncensored library"? I was curious about this as well. The "criteria for inclusion" link takes you to a page on "weeding:" https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/weeding-is-fundamental/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/weeding-is-fundamenta... It describes the process (a few different ones, MUSTY, green/yellow/red) but not a lot of concrete facts (what books were "weeded" or which books were suggested but not purchased.)
- hot_gril 3y ago
  There isn't going to be an exact process. The answer is, they say so, and someone else can make his own library if he doesn't like their choices.
gorwell 3y ago
"sensitive" as a criteria is a dead giveaway they are censors advertising themselves as the opposite. It's an evolved brand of censor; like some types of predator snakes that have evolved to mimic its harmless prey.
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  Feel free to back up this assertion with examples. I hope you'll come back with something better than 'I couldn't find anything about Hunter Biden's laptop.'
  - gorwell 3y ago
    Feel free to explain why an "uncensored library" would have this criteria.
    - anigbrowl 3y ago
      You made the claim. I suggest you back it up instead of trying to redirect. Lots of propaganda tries to wrap itself in the moral mantle of journalism, I am fine with the curators being somewhat opinionated.
    - LoganDark 3y ago
      having criteria for inclusion is not censorship
      - DinoDad13 3y ago
        that's all moderation
        LoganDark 3y ago
        i fail to explain how they differ so you are probably right
      - pessimizer 3y ago
        Are you sure? Doesn't it depend on the criteria? What if my criteria is that the author not be Catholic, or that they aren't competing with my son in the pork industry?
        LoganDark 3y ago
brightlancer 3y ago
Exactly. Where is the line between "curation" (or "moderation" in discussions) and "censorship"? If the line is subjective, how do we handle disagreements on that? Even supposed objective measurements such as "Is this factually true?" can fail because we aren't omniscient, we learn new things and realize what was "true" yesterday is actually false, and sometimes an authority keeps telling us something is "true" and anyone who dissents is "moderated" and "curated" into effective silence. I would trust Reporters Without Borders more than most, but maybe that's because their biases align with mine and I don't object to their censorship.
- pixl97 3y ago
  Reality requires bias. Without bias and interpretation omniscients is required. A human mind does not have the luxury of knowing everything. We have limited compute power, and limited time. Furthermore our systems only have capabilities for limited data. We have to filter against junk or our systems get overwhelmed, but deciding what is junk is also a bias. The best we can do is state our biases, and design our systems to reflect or biases properly. If others don't like those biases they are free to create their own systems that reflect their biases.
  - vorpalhex 3y ago
    I agree with your statement in the theoretical. However I disagree in practice because of this: > If others don't like those biases they are free to create their own systems that reflect their biases. Those who create alternatives are attacked, chased, banned, deplatformed. Even if a webhost is happy to work with you, the credit card network may not be or their bank may ban them. Not that the signal doesn't find a way - the good work of Anna's archive and all that - but it's not just "go build your own platform". It becomes "fight at every turn for your basic existence".
    - pessimizer 3y ago
      The market of ideas fails under capitalism. The market of ideas is denominated in votes, but capitalism requires it to be denominated in dollars. The market of ideas also fails under governments and corporations who pay thousands of people to work covertly and overtly to eradicate ideas.
golemiprague 3y ago
[dead]

by tivert 3y ago

hot_gril 3y ago

At least now a country has to ban Minecraft to ban those books, or force MC to drop its encryption and invent a very obscure Minecraft packet inspection technique that players will more easily circumvent some other way.

trelane 3y ago

> Whenever I see a project like this, I have to ask: what kinds of true things are censored from the "uncensored library"? I was curious about this as well. The "criteria for inclusion" link takes you to a page on "weeding:" https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/weeding-is-fundamental/ https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/weeding-is-fundamenta... It describes the process (a few different ones, MUSTY, green/yellow/red) but not a lot of concrete facts (what books were "weeded" or which books were suggested but not purchased.)

hot_gril 3y ago
There isn't going to be an exact process. The answer is, they say so, and someone else can make his own library if he doesn't like their choices.

gorwell 3y ago

"sensitive" as a criteria is a dead giveaway they are censors advertising themselves as the opposite. It's an evolved brand of censor; like some types of predator snakes that have evolved to mimic its harmless prey.

anigbrowl 3y ago
Feel free to back up this assertion with examples. I hope you'll come back with something better than 'I couldn't find anything about Hunter Biden's laptop.'
- gorwell 3y ago
  Feel free to explain why an "uncensored library" would have this criteria.
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    You made the claim. I suggest you back it up instead of trying to redirect. Lots of propaganda tries to wrap itself in the moral mantle of journalism, I am fine with the curators being somewhat opinionated.
  - LoganDark 3y ago
    having criteria for inclusion is not censorship
    - DinoDad13 3y ago
      that's all moderation
      - LoganDark 3y ago
        i fail to explain how they differ so you are probably right
    - pessimizer 3y ago
      Are you sure? Doesn't it depend on the criteria? What if my criteria is that the author not be Catholic, or that they aren't competing with my son in the pork industry?
      - LoganDark 3y ago

brightlancer 3y ago

Exactly. Where is the line between "curation" (or "moderation" in discussions) and "censorship"? If the line is subjective, how do we handle disagreements on that? Even supposed objective measurements such as "Is this factually true?" can fail because we aren't omniscient, we learn new things and realize what was "true" yesterday is actually false, and sometimes an authority keeps telling us something is "true" and anyone who dissents is "moderated" and "curated" into effective silence. I would trust Reporters Without Borders more than most, but maybe that's because their biases align with mine and I don't object to their censorship.

pixl97 3y ago
Reality requires bias. Without bias and interpretation omniscients is required. A human mind does not have the luxury of knowing everything. We have limited compute power, and limited time. Furthermore our systems only have capabilities for limited data. We have to filter against junk or our systems get overwhelmed, but deciding what is junk is also a bias. The best we can do is state our biases, and design our systems to reflect or biases properly. If others don't like those biases they are free to create their own systems that reflect their biases.
- vorpalhex 3y ago
  I agree with your statement in the theoretical. However I disagree in practice because of this: > If others don't like those biases they are free to create their own systems that reflect their biases. Those who create alternatives are attacked, chased, banned, deplatformed. Even if a webhost is happy to work with you, the credit card network may not be or their bank may ban them. Not that the signal doesn't find a way - the good work of Anna's archive and all that - but it's not just "go build your own platform". It becomes "fight at every turn for your basic existence".
  - pessimizer 3y ago
    The market of ideas fails under capitalism. The market of ideas is denominated in votes, but capitalism requires it to be denominated in dollars. The market of ideas also fails under governments and corporations who pay thousands of people to work covertly and overtly to eradicate ideas.

golemiprague 3y ago

[dead]