3 ms·

This sort of hyperbole is unhelpful. North Korea is totalitarian. Nazi Germany was totalitarian. The Soviet Union was totalitarian. Criticising the government

by mooism2 14y ago

This sort of hyperbole is unhelpful. North Korea is totalitarian. Nazi Germany was totalitarian. The Soviet Union was totalitarian. Criticising the government could get you executed, or imprisoned in a far away forced labour camp for a long time. Quora is a website. They can, er, ban you from using their website. That might be a stupid, not very nice action for them to carry out, but it's not totalitarian.

desbest 14y ago
The hyperbole is helpful. First they ban accounts and sometimes delete them to make the person disappear without a trace, and secondly they prohibit you from asking why certain people got banned. This censorship prevents people from acknowledging that certain people existed. Criticising Quora on Quora will get you banned without prior warning, and in some instances have your account deleted without a trace. And when you're banned or disappeared, nobody is allowed ask why that happened, as those questions get censored. Think of it like this when you criticise Quora. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Voroshilov%2C_Molotov%2C_Stalin%2C_with_Nikolai_Yezhov.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Voroshilo... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/The_Commissar_Vanishes_2.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/The_Commi... And then being censored when you ask why the person force disappeared.
- XiaoPing 14y ago
  They also libel you after you have been banned because you cannot respond.
  - codezero 14y ago
    Content providers are not subject to the same laws of libel as, for example, newspapers. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc. And the subsequent Section 230 of the CDA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicatio...
    - desbest 14y ago
      When the admins who run the "content providers" are engaging in libel themselves, about the people that use(d) their service, it's a whole different ball game. In no way was it implied that an ISP or other information transfer network (ie. the post), had to moderate its data transfers. This is about the specific service that uses the network, not the network.
      - codezero 14y ago
        Admins are for the most part volunteers who do not work for or represent the company. But you are right, if company employees are saying things specifically about people that would be considered libelous that's a problem.

by mooism2 14y ago

desbest 14y ago

The hyperbole is helpful. First they ban accounts and sometimes delete them to make the person disappear without a trace, and secondly they prohibit you from asking why certain people got banned. This censorship prevents people from acknowledging that certain people existed. Criticising Quora on Quora will get you banned without prior warning, and in some instances have your account deleted without a trace. And when you're banned or disappeared, nobody is allowed ask why that happened, as those questions get censored. Think of it like this when you criticise Quora. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Voroshilov%2C_Molotov%2C_Stalin%2C_with_Nikolai_Yezhov.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/91/Voroshilo... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/The_Commissar_Vanishes_2.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/The_Commi... And then being censored when you ask why the person force disappeared.

XiaoPing 14y ago
They also libel you after you have been banned because you cannot respond.
- codezero 14y ago
  Content providers are not subject to the same laws of libel as, for example, newspapers. see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubby,_Inc._v._CompuServe_Inc. And the subsequent Section 230 of the CDA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communications_Decency_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230_of_the_Communicatio...
  - desbest 14y ago
    When the admins who run the "content providers" are engaging in libel themselves, about the people that use(d) their service, it's a whole different ball game. In no way was it implied that an ISP or other information transfer network (ie. the post), had to moderate its data transfers. This is about the specific service that uses the network, not the network.
    - codezero 14y ago
      Admins are for the most part volunteers who do not work for or represent the company. But you are right, if company employees are saying things specifically about people that would be considered libelous that's a problem.