3 ms·
I don't think they are disputing it was blocked more the reason was copyright not other reasons.
by asdfaoeu 14d ago
I don't think they are disputing it was blocked more the reason was copyright not other reasons.
- mitxela 14d agoCopyright is a content-based reason.
- Gathering6678 14d agoMy point is - copyright is also a "content related" reason: some site is banned because the content of the site is infringing the copyright of someone else. In the end, all censorship is content related. One could definitely argue along the spectrum of "all" to "none" censorship is appropriate, but I would guess most people actually hold the belief that "some" censorship is okay, while disagreeing on "which" censorship is okay. If this is the case, then the bias problem is indeed relevant.
- Gathering6678 14d agoPlus, this sentence in the original post I replied to really struck me as absurd: "Content-neutral time, place, and manner restrictions aren't censorship". Let's imagine a country bans the distribution of all writings by authors in another country/region disregard of the content. It would not be censorship according to the original post. The fact that a ban encompasses a wide variety of content could mean simply that it is difficult/undesirable to limit the scope of the ban, but the censorship always originates from the content.
- WillPostForFood 14d agoYou are misunderstanding time/place/manner restrictions. The rule must apply equally to all speakers regardless of topic, opinion, or political stance. If you banned "the distribution of all writings by authors in another country/region" you aren't applying the restriction equally.
- mitxela 14d agoSo Anna's Archive ban is not a t/p/m restriction so why bring it up. But when Iran turns off the whole internet during a protest apparently that is a content-neutral t/p/m restriction?
- ShinyLeftPad 14d agoInteresting. When will OpenAI and friends be blocked on the same grounds?