3 ms·
Since you consider it censorship, would you prefer that these people continue giving their money to a company they find morally objectionable?
by 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 agoThey 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 agoWhat's wrong with that?
- nonrecursive 18y agoWhy am I being downmodded for asking someone to clarify his position?
- wheels 18y agoSee, 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.