3 ms·

> The false equivalence you're trying to establish between censoring child porn (illegal for very good reasons we hopefully all agree on) im not drawing a fals

by toofy 3y ago

> The false equivalence you're trying to establish between censoring child porn (illegal for very good reasons we hopefully all agree on) im not drawing a false equivalence to anything. the article in which this entire comment section is linked surrounds piracy--which for better or worse is illegal, just like child porn. It is entirely and thoroughly relevant to discuss censoring illegal attributes *and* non-illegal attributes such as: > spam (something you opt-into and can opt out of at any time) and it is absolute non-sensical to argue that spam is something we opt into. if it were opted into, then by definition it isn't spam. and to even imply that people can opt-out of actual spam is wild. go ahead, set up your own email server, don't "censor" any spam, and attempt to opt-out. let us know how this goes--as someone who has administered many organization's email servers, i can confidently assure you that it will absolutely not go well and you will of course not be able to simply opt-out of it. you *will* censor it. remember, spam isn't illegal, but pretty much every organization in the world will "censor" spam. any crying about censorship which doesn't consider the question "why is it ok to block spam?" immediately shows how unserious and unnuanced the discussion will be--a literal waste of time. if you can't distinguish between the organizations i listed (restaurants, bars, forums, etc...) curating their audience and some version of wholesale "individuals free speech" then obviously the nuance needed to talk about this in any meaningful manner doesn't exist. if you are able to distinguish the nuances between those, then i absolutely welcome the discussion. again, the "who decides" pearl-clutching boils down to the organization and the audience they're curating. in terms of governments suppressing free-speech, i usually (but not always) agree with most arguments that the government should typically not be prosecuting for speech. sadly, im not shocked with how many of the free-speech internet screamers have suddenly gone quiet now that multiple actual state backed attacks on free-speech are happening across the country. from book bans in libraries, to book bans in schools, to silencing teachers, to drag shows. there have now been 100s (if not 1000s) of these instances and all of those pearl clutchers are now silent. their silence is wildly predictable tho, /shrug again, there's no false-equivalence as the topic has been so muddied by disingenuous bad-faith actors for so long that many people can't even begin to distinguish between a government suppressing free-speech, websites or places curating an audience experience, and also freedom of association. most of the people crying about censorship don't even understand why the conversation must have at least those as a starting point or its not worth having.

dns_snek 3y ago
> this entire comment section is linked surrounds piracy--which for better or worse is illegal, just like child porn So is "jaywalking", but we don't bring them up in the same discussion because copyright infringement is not in any way comparable to exploitation of minors. > and it is absolute non-sensical to argue that spam is something we opt into. [...] and to even imply that people can opt-out of actual spam is wild. go ahead, set up your own email server, don't "censor" any spam, and attempt to opt-out. Firstly, I was obviously referring to spam filtering, not spam itself. Secondly, spam filtering is not censorship. If the government or private entity unilaterally decided to stop emails from <Political Party> from reaching your inbox, that would be censorship. When you yourself decide to use a spam filter, which you're free to customize to your liking - that's not censorship. There is no equivalence. If you're equating content filtering which you have full control over, with censorship, then any discussion is indeed a waste of time. > if you can't distinguish between the organizations i listed (restaurants, bars, forums, etc...) curating their audience and some version of wholesale "individuals free speech" then obviously the nuance needed to talk about this in any meaningful manner doesn't exist. The person above the "Who gets to decide?" question was not talking about "censorship" at private in-person establishments, but wholesale censorship of communication because they perceive the entire concept of freedom of expression as a net negative to society. Perhaps you should read it again. > now that multiple actual state backed attacks on free-speech are happening across the country. from book bans in libraries, to book bans in schools, to silencing teachers, to drag shows. there have now been 100s (if not 1000s) of these instances I don't understand, you seemingly agree that "who decides" is an extremely important question when someone proposes "censorship", even though you just spent several paragraphs dismissing it as ridiculous. It shouldn't be "them" deciding what gets censored, right? So if not them, do you get to decide what gets censored? > again, there's no false-equivalence as the topic has been so muddied by disingenuous bad-faith actors I agree, dragging user-controlled spam filters into the debate about government censorship of speech is disingenuous and bad faith.

by toofy 3y ago

dns_snek 3y ago

> this entire comment section is linked surrounds piracy--which for better or worse is illegal, just like child porn So is "jaywalking", but we don't bring them up in the same discussion because copyright infringement is not in any way comparable to exploitation of minors. > and it is absolute non-sensical to argue that spam is something we opt into. [...] and to even imply that people can opt-out of actual spam is wild. go ahead, set up your own email server, don't "censor" any spam, and attempt to opt-out. Firstly, I was obviously referring to spam filtering, not spam itself. Secondly, spam filtering is not censorship. If the government or private entity unilaterally decided to stop emails from <Political Party> from reaching your inbox, that would be censorship. When you yourself decide to use a spam filter, which you're free to customize to your liking - that's not censorship. There is no equivalence. If you're equating content filtering which you have full control over, with censorship, then any discussion is indeed a waste of time. > if you can't distinguish between the organizations i listed (restaurants, bars, forums, etc...) curating their audience and some version of wholesale "individuals free speech" then obviously the nuance needed to talk about this in any meaningful manner doesn't exist. The person above the "Who gets to decide?" question was not talking about "censorship" at private in-person establishments, but wholesale censorship of communication because they perceive the entire concept of freedom of expression as a net negative to society. Perhaps you should read it again. > now that multiple actual state backed attacks on free-speech are happening across the country. from book bans in libraries, to book bans in schools, to silencing teachers, to drag shows. there have now been 100s (if not 1000s) of these instances I don't understand, you seemingly agree that "who decides" is an extremely important question when someone proposes "censorship", even though you just spent several paragraphs dismissing it as ridiculous. It shouldn't be "them" deciding what gets censored, right? So if not them, do you get to decide what gets censored? > again, there's no false-equivalence as the topic has been so muddied by disingenuous bad-faith actors I agree, dragging user-controlled spam filters into the debate about government censorship of speech is disingenuous and bad faith.