3 ms·

This isn't censorship, it's a boycott, and it's a perfectly valid way to express your dislike for a company's PR decisions. I don't care about the ads, but I w

• ErrantX 18y ago
  It's boycott to a point yes. But spamming media outlets with it is an attempt at censorship. It's a fine line but if the aim is to make GoDaddy tone down the Ad's to "religion approved" [sic] versions (as it seems it is) then it is an attempt at censorhip surely ;D
  • wheels 18y ago
    No, really, it's not. A boycott wouldn't do much good if you didn't tell people about it.
    • ErrantX 18y ago
      No really it is ;) As I said it is a fine line: but read into it and their main aim is to stop them using the ads. That's an attempt at censorship (I'm not disagreeing that it is a boycott too).
      • wheels 18y ago
        Censorship requires a censor with the ability to remove information. They don't have that and at least as far as is reported in this article, they're not pushing the people with the power to censure the media to do so. Trying to get a company to stop doing something that a consumer considers offensive isn't censorship. This is just like the anti-sweatshop boycotts that are common on the left end of the political spectrum.
        • ErrantX 18y ago
          fair enough :)
          • hachiya 18y ago
            It's capitulations like this, agreeing when shown wrong, where appropriate, that separate HN from other sites. The maturity here really shines through on occasions like this.
            • ErrantX 18y ago
              thx :) In fairness (rereading back) I should have done so about 2 posts earlier :( oh well.
      • _phred 18y ago
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship "Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor." vs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott "A boycott is a form of consumer activism involving the act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with someone or some other organization as an expression of protest, usually of political reasons." Clearly, the Christian businessman in the article would like GoDaddy to "clean up" their act, but I didn't find any request by him for government intervention, nor any government action at play with regard to GoDaddy. Plain and simply, he has a moral objection to pornographic advertising, and has chosen to take his business elsewhere. As a Christian myself, I've held the same stance towards GoDaddy for a long time, because I personally don't like being sold domain names with sex. They can continue to do business as they choose, and I can continue to state my opinion about their practices and take my business elsewhere.
      • BigZaphod 18y ago
        You need to set aside your obvious disdain for religion so you can see this for what it is. This isn't censorship or even an attempt at an organized boycott as far as I can tell. This is good old fashioned market forces at work. And, frankly, while I'm not a very religious person, I've always hated the ads too and as a direct result have never even considered using GoDaddy.
        • ErrantX 18y ago
          Again fair point (sorry, the intention was not to turn HN into a religion.vs debate :( that's not for here). I think my main point was the huge emphasis on the story - definitely (and I dont think it is because of my bias) born out of the religious nature of the complaint. If yourself were hosting a few thousands sites with GoDaddy and had objected in the same way (from a non-religious stance) and sent the same letter would it have made such a big story.... As I always say (it might be my catch phrase :P) "each to his own, and leave me to mine". [for the record in case people misconstrue my bias I have great respect for faith (to a point, obviously); but I believe religious organisations to often be an evil force]
• robotron 18y ago
  Censorship 2.0, then. Easier to create an uproar on the internet than bend the FCC to your will. Personally, I found the commercials stupid and I dislike GoDaddy for reasons beyond their advertisements.
  • nonrecursive 18y ago
    Since you consider it censorship, would you prefer that these people continue giving their money to a company they find morally objectionable?
    • robotron 18y ago
      They can take their money wherever they want. That's not what they are doing, though. Rather, they would have GoDaddy adhere to their moral standards.
      • jimbokun 18y ago
        "That's not what they are doing, though." Yes, that is precisely what they are doing.
      • nonrecursive 18y ago
        What's wrong with that?
        • nonrecursive 18y ago
          Why am I being downmodded for asking someone to clarify his position?
      • wheels 18y ago
        See, I'm really anti-censorship, and pro-consumer activism, which is why I keep coming back to this thread. Usually I don't care about terms being wrong, but censorship's an important topic, so it's worth being pedantic about the semantics. Let's pretend this isn't about commercials and boobies, but about companies employing sweat shop workers, companies serving meat from animals that were fed growth hormones, a company treating its employees poorly, etc. If I'm morally opposed to cows being fed growth hormones and tell some friends and write in my blog that I'm not going to buy hamburgers from McWendy's or whatever, is that censorship in your book? Is me holding the companies I patronize to some set of moral standards wrong? Now, if this were a controversial news story, and back-room pressure from an influential advertiser, I might be more opposed to the exertion of economic pressure. But it's not. It's a commercial trying to get you to buy domains with low-brow boobie jokes. And for some customers, rather than making them want to purchase the product, it made them want to avoid the product, and they're now voicing that. There's nothing scandalous going down here.