3 ms·

Parent is trolling, but there is an interesting slippery slope here that should be explored. If a government shuts down GoDaddy's web ads, that's censorship.

Parent is trolling, but there is an interesting slippery slope here that should be explored. If a government shuts down GoDaddy's web ads, that's censorship. Writing a law as a member of the Senate to shut down Godaddy's web ads is probably censorship. Is organizing a lobby to campaign to shut down their web ads censorship? Is writing a blog post asking people to vote for a law in which Godaddy's web ads are shut down censorship? Is voting for such a law censorship? Is saying "we should have such a law" censorship? In a democracy, at what point do we go from saying "Godaddy should shut up", which is a first amendment right, to full-on censorship? A government is full of people; there's nothing fundamentally different about a group of people executing their rights in a boycott and a group of people exercising their voting rights to accomplish some goal.

yters 18y ago
Well, the main difference in my mind is that the government can legally apply force to make someone stop doing something.
ErrantX 18y ago
Hey! I'd dispute it was trolling. That's extremely offensive, I'd ask you to retract the comment. It was rash and strongly (and probably badly) worded. > Is organizing a lobby to campaign to shut down their web ads censorship? Yes: if the aim is to get someone to shut them down then it is an attempt at censorship (and if they succeed it is). That is not, and I believe wheel would agree here, simply a boycott anymore. > Is voting for such a law censorship? That's a difficult question. I'd probably say yes.. but I'd want it to actually happen before acusing everyone (so you could check motives etc.) I've admitted I was wrong to call it censorship - but I do still think it's getting a lot more press than it deserves. Lots of people "boycott" GoDaddy for non-religious reasons (some in protest at the adverts - comments here are testament to that) and have been doing so for a long while. Why is it such a big deal now? Because this guy "represents" religion.. which is media friendly. Indeed these ads have been around for a while: why is it such a big problem now? It's certainly the perfect basis for the lobby group (and I am sure the Christian lobby groups will sieze on it at some point :)). I think in a democracy that people forget it is "majority rule". You are, of course, entitled to your own opinions and ideas of what is right (that, though, is probably not part of the democracy per se). But you view does not represent everyones unless a majority of people agree with it. Therefore IMO it is wrong to try and turn a legitimate boycott on personal grounds into an attempt to impose your morals onto the majority. I would say that most people either do not care or enjoy the ads (probably mostly in the former category). The person in question did not write the letter in a way to say "I am not using your service any more, this is why" he wrote from the perspective of "your offending out sensibilities so please change or we'll stop using you". Which is a threat in my eyes :D

yters 18y ago

Well, the main difference in my mind is that the government can legally apply force to make someone stop doing something.

ErrantX 18y ago

Hey! I'd dispute it was trolling. That's extremely offensive, I'd ask you to retract the comment. It was rash and strongly (and probably badly) worded. > Is organizing a lobby to campaign to shut down their web ads censorship? Yes: if the aim is to get someone to shut them down then it is an attempt at censorship (and if they succeed it is). That is not, and I believe wheel would agree here, simply a boycott anymore. > Is voting for such a law censorship? That's a difficult question. I'd probably say yes.. but I'd want it to actually happen before acusing everyone (so you could check motives etc.) I've admitted I was wrong to call it censorship - but I do still think it's getting a lot more press than it deserves. Lots of people "boycott" GoDaddy for non-religious reasons (some in protest at the adverts - comments here are testament to that) and have been doing so for a long while. Why is it such a big deal now? Because this guy "represents" religion.. which is media friendly. Indeed these ads have been around for a while: why is it such a big problem now? It's certainly the perfect basis for the lobby group (and I am sure the Christian lobby groups will sieze on it at some point :)). I think in a democracy that people forget it is "majority rule". You are, of course, entitled to your own opinions and ideas of what is right (that, though, is probably not part of the democracy per se). But you view does not represent everyones unless a majority of people agree with it. Therefore IMO it is wrong to try and turn a legitimate boycott on personal grounds into an attempt to impose your morals onto the majority. I would say that most people either do not care or enjoy the ads (probably mostly in the former category). The person in question did not write the letter in a way to say "I am not using your service any more, this is why" he wrote from the perspective of "your offending out sensibilities so please change or we'll stop using you". Which is a threat in my eyes :D